This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397

read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order

dated 15.12.2021 passed in S.C.No.2/2012 on the file of the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerd and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that in the case on hand, charges are framed for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 404 and 201

read with Section 34 of IPC. The matter pertains to the year

2012 and the incident has taken place in 2011. The prosecution

has examined some of the witnesses and P.W.34 was not cross-

examined. Hence, an application was filed for cross-examination

of P.W.34 and also for recalling the witnesses P.Ws.10, 15, 16,

27, 28, 32, 35, 37 and 40. The Trial Court, while rejecting the

application in respect of P.Ws.10, 15, 16, 27, 28, 32, 35, 37 and

3

40 has given the reason that these witnesses have been

extensively cross-examined by the defence side and there is no

need for recalling the said witnesses. However, allowed the

application in respect of P.W.34. Hence, the present revision

petition is filed before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

vehemently contend that Section 138 of Evidence Act provides

that the examination and cross-examination must relate to

relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined

to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-

chief. He would also contend that the Trial Court committed an

error in coming to the conclusion that witnesses have been

extensively cross-examined. It is essential that for just decision

of the case, the witnesses have to be further cross-examined.

This application is filed for the first time for recalling of

prosecution witnesses in the year 2021. Now, the counsel

restricts his prayer for recalling the witnesses only in respect of

P.Ws.10, 15, 27, 28, 37 and 40 and not seeks for recalling

P.Ws.16, 32 and 35. He would further contend that the

witnesses which are now sought to be recalled are material

4

witnesses and the case rests upon circumstantial evidence and

the cross-examination of these witnesses are very much

necessary to find out the truth.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State would submit that these witnesses were cross-

examined long back in the year 2013 and after lapse of 8 years,

the present application is filed for recalling of the said witnesses.

She would also submit that these witnesses have already been

cross-examined extensively and the Trial Court, while rejecting

the application, formed an opinion that these witnesses have

been extensively cross-examined and there is no need to recall

these witnesses. She would further contend that if these

witnesses are recalled again, it affects the evidence available on

record which was recorded almost 8 years back.

6.

In reply to the arguments of learned High Court

Government Pleader for the State, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners would submit that cost can be imposed and

further cross-examination of these witnesses is material to the

case on hand.

5

7.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute

that incident has taken place in the year 2011 and subsequently,

case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed which is

numbered as S.C.No.2/2012 and the matter is pending from

almost more than a decade. The records also reveal that these

witnesses have been examined in the year 2013 itself and

therefore, no application is filed for further cross-examination of

the witnesses. The present application is filed after lapse of 8

years of cross-examination of these witnesses.

8.

When such being the material available on record

and already these witnesses have been cross-examined by the

defence counsel extensively as observed