CHAMAN DAS Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 3/09/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh in Sessions Case No. 21/2012 whereby application on behalf of Chamandas the petitioner under Section 311 read with 231 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected wherein the petitioner wanted to confront the witnesses with further cross examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has not considered the fact whether the question which were said to be proposed was relevant or not but the learned court below without going into merits has dismissed the application. He submits that the dismissal was only on the ground that earlier counsel who had appeared had cross examined the witnesses. Thereafter the other counsel who had subsequently entered his appearance wanted to cross examine the witness again which cannot be allured. The counsel further submits that such dismissal of application simplicitor by a non speaking order is bad in law. He further submits that when the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was made specially in the nature herein, the court should not have dismissed it on technical ground without much deliberation on merits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the law reported in the matter of Sudevanand v. State through : CBI, 2012 AIR(SCW) 953 and also in the matter of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar & Anr, 2013 AIR(SCW) 4179 , and would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle governing the decision for application of section 311 of Cr.P.C. The relevant part is reproduced herein below:--

(3.) He would further submit that since trial was under Section 302 of IPC as such the court while dismissing the application the court should have satisfied itself that whether it was essential to examine a witness or to recall him for further examination was necessary or was required or not in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. He would submit that section 311 of Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth and render a just decision and therefore he prays that the case be remanded back and prays for quashing of the order dated 3/09/2013 passed by the learned court below.