SRINIVASA B. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition seeking to recall several witnesses, on the footing that the prosecution has examined an expert witness and the expert witness has furnished an opinion, which would negate the assertions made by the several witnesses and therefore, it has become necessary to recall the said witnesses. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made an application in all earnestness and not with an intention to protract the proceedings and it is in his own interest to ensure that there is a speedy trial and the endeavour is to arrive at truth.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned Counsel for the respondent would point out that the petitioner has not stated the reason or the aspect on which he seeks to cross -examine the witnesses, who were duly cross -examined at the relevant point of time. It is for the first time stated before this court that it is to confront the witnesses with the alleged signatures found on various documents, which the handwriting expert has certified, as not belonging to the petitioner. In any event, if there is inconsistency between the expert evidence and the evidence tendered by the other witnesses for the prosecution, it enures to the benefit of the petitioner and it is not necessary to recall those witnesses, whom he has cross -examined in the first place.