STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only a short point is involved in this criminal revision. So, I proceed to dispose of this finally.

(2.) The respondent is facing trial for offences punishable u/Ss. 323 and 302 of the IPC. There is only one eye witness of the occurrence and she was examined as PW1. Her exam-in-chief was recorded on 13.4.1987 and her cross-exam, was completed on 4.7.1987. PW 1 Pushpa herself had made an application on 12.12.1988, in which she had prayed for being given permission to narrate the true facts of the case and she filed two affidavits giving out her version of the occurrence which was at variance to what she had deposed in court as Public Witness 1 or had told the police in the F.I.R. The Additional Sessions Judge had not allowed that application and had observed that the question whether Public Witness 1 should be allowed to give any other statement would be decided after prosecution evidence has been completed.

(3.) The respondent had filed an application praying that Public Witness 1 be recalled for purposes of further cross-exam, as new material in the shape of affidavits of Pushpa had come on the record and thus, it has become necessary to confront Public Witness 1 with her averments made in the two affidavits being in contradiction what she had deposed in court. The learned Additional S.J. exercising his power u/S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') had allowed this application and had directed for recalling PW 1 for further cross-exam. This order has been challenged by the State by filing this criminal revision.