RAMANNA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (Accused No. 4) approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, on the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Perusal of the entire record discloses that the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 498 -A, 504 and 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and also Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The order of the trial Court also discloses that, after framing of charges, the trial Court proceeded to examine 24 witnesses and it is also observed from the records that some of the witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. At that juncture, it appears the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application requesting the Court to call the child witness by name Mounesh, who is none other than the son of the deceased (victim) as well as Accused No. 4, as one of the witnesses to the prosecution, before the court. According to the prosecution, the child -Mounesh is an eyewitness to the incident. The Court after examining the entire material on record, has allowed the said application after considering the objections filed by the accused for the said application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. The said order is called in question before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued before the Court that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the said witness, though at the earlier stages, it was disclosed that the said witness was present in the house of the deceased. It is also submitted that when there is no statement recorded by the police, abruptly, no witness can be examined before the Court and the accused will not get any opportunity to see that, that witness was before the Court. The previous statement would have helped the accused to cross -examine the witness. It is also contended before the Court that 24 witnesses, who were examined before the Court have never spoken anything about the presence of this witness -Mounesh at the time of the incident. Therefore, in order to create a new evidence before the Court and also in order to improve the version of the prosecution and fill -up the lacuna, the said witness was sought to be summoned before the Court as an eye -witness, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, such application ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court.