KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the orders dtd. 1/9/2021 and 21/9/2021 passed by the learned ASJ, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) was closed and the application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the said witness dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, both the father and the mother of the deceased were cited as prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner so that the prosecution witnesses may not improve upon their case, a request was made to the Trial Court for an opportunity to cross-examine both the witnesses on one day. However, the petitioner's request was declined by the Trial Court vide the impugned orders and on 1/9/2021, only Vinod Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) was present and examined, whereas the mother of the deceased (PW-2) was not summoned on that day. Learned counsel also submits that although an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. seeking an opportunity to recall and cross-examine the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan was filed, the prosecution subsequently dropped PW-2 from the array of witnesses. He prays that under the circumstances, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine Vinod Kumar Chauhan on one single day, on which day he will also conduct the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness.

(3.) The scope of Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as (2012) 7 SCC 56, where the Court held as under:-