Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2190
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J
Anas Shah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 14009/2024
Manoj Kumar Agrawal,Advocate General
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny reexamination of witnesses, emphasizing the sufficiency of prior cross-examination and the lack of justification for further questioning.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Section 311 - Petition filed against the order rejecting the application for recalling the victim and her mother for reexamination - The application was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate necessity for reexamination and had already cross-examined the witnesses adequately. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Right to fair trial - The court emphasized that all possible defenses had been presented during the initial cross-examination, rendering further examination unnecessary. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is facing trial under Section 376 of IPC, and after a change of counsel, sought to recall the victim and her mother for further questioning, which was denied by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the initial cross-examination was sufficient.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner provided adequate reasons for recalling the witnesses for reexamination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner had not justified the need for further examination of the witnesses, and the trial court's decision was upheld.
Result: Petition dismissed.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as Cr.P.C .) against the order dated 7.2.2024 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(POCSO), (the learned 14th Additional Session Court, Indore) in SC.No.246/2023 (State Vs. Anas); whereby, the application filed under Section 311 of the CRPC for recalling the victim as also the mother of the victim, has been rejected.
2. In brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trail under Section 376 of IPC in which the prosecutrix and others witnesses have already been examined. However, after the change of counsel, an application under Section 311 of CRPC was filed by the new counsel stating that certain suggestions could not be made to the mother of the victim as also the victim, who have been examined as (PW-2) and (PW-
1) respectivelỵ The aforesaid application has been rejected on the ground that due opportunity of cross examination has already been provided to the petitioner, and the petitioner has also not stated as to what are the reason for recalling the said witnesses for reexamination. The petitioner has also not stated in its application under Section 311 of CRPC as to why reexamination of said witnesses is necessary.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the various documents filed before this Court on 23.4.2024, to submit that the mother of the prosecutrix was having an affair with the petitioner/accused which led her to lodge a false case against him, and thus, certain questions are required to be put to the mother of the prosecutrix.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State on the otherhand has opposed the prayer.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the documents filed on record, including the deposition of the prosecutrix and her mother, this court is of the considered opinion, all the possible defences have already been taken by the petitioner in the cross examination of the aforesaid two witnesses, in such circumstances, their further cross examination is not necessary and the learned judge has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Section 311 of CRPC filed by the petitioner.
6. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed
