MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the petition.

(2.) The petitioners have called in question the order passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by them under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to further cross examine PWs.6, 7 and 11 in SC No.75/2015. The said application came to be dismissed on 17.05.2017. It is undisputed fact that originally the Court has framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the Court has altered the charges under Section 306 IPC in addition to the charges already framed. Thereafter, the case has been set down for arguments. At the time of arguments, it is observed by the Trial Court that the advocate appearing for the accused stated that he has no further evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor has also stated that he has no further evidence. Therefore, the matter was set down for arguments.

(3.) After completion of the entire evidence, the Court recorded the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and posted the case for arguments. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking indulgence of the Court to permit him to further cross examine PWs.6, 7 and 11. In the application, it is categorically stated that as the charges have been further framed under Section 306 IPC, petitioner's Counsel further wants to cross examine the said witnesses. The said application was contested by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that the evidence already recorded is sufficient as the evidence of PWs.6, 7 and 11 were cross examined at length. Just for the sake to fill up the gaps, an opportunity was sought for, by the petitioners, therefore, the application is not maintainable.