SUNILA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called in question the common order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in SC Nos.227/2014 and 159/2015, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 seeking further cross-examination of PW.14, the Investigating Officer and PW.15, the Medical Officer, who were examined in connection with the above said two cases.

(2.) The trial Judge has rejected the said application of the petitioners mainly on the ground that, the applicants have already availed opportunity and they have not brought any materials to show that, due to inadvertence, they could not able to cross-examine the said witnesses completely. The trial Court has also observed that PWs. 14 and 15 were examined at length by the accused, therefore, there is no reason to allow the said application.

(3.) On perusal of the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. it is noticed that, in the said application it is categorically stated that the said witnesses have spoken about the dying declaration of deceased recorded as per Ex.P17. In examination-in- chief, both PWs. 14 and 15 have categorically stated about the said aspect. During the course of cross- examination, on the said aspect, these two witnesses, were not cross-examined in detail, but some casual questions appears to have been put to them with regard to dying declaration. Due to the best reasons known to the learned counsel appearing for the accused before the trial Court, he has not touched upon the aspect of recording of dying declaration and other evidence adduced by PWs. 14 and 15. Due to some lapses on the part of the counsel for the accused, prejudice should not be caused to the accused persons. It is the fundamental basis principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that fullest opportunity should be given to the parties by the base court itself so as to avoid unnecessary further complications and multiplicity of proceedings. Always it should be borne in mind by the courts while dealing with the aspect of recalling of witnesses that, the court should objectively examine whether such application really deserves consideration. Merely there is any delay in filing application or there is no proper explanation in the application and it is insufficient, the court should not throw out such applications, but the court on over all visualization of the entire material on record should come to a conclusion whether such application really deserves for consideration or not.