JITENDER @ KALIA Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of these two Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner invokes the inherent powers of the Court to summon four witnesses, that is, PW-3 Raj Kumar Bhati, PW-4 Sumit Nayyar, PW-6 Janesh Kumar and PW-25 SI Ram Avtar for the purpose of further cross-examination and one Sanjay Sharma who was cited as a prosecution witness, but was not examined, for his examination on the ground that earlier said Sanjay Sharma was son of SI Ram Avtar who was IO of the case. This fact was, however, not disclosed and, therefore, it was essential to cross examine PW-3 Raj Kumar Bhati, PW-4 Sumit Nayyar, PW-6 Janesh Kumar, PW-25 SI Ram Avtar and to examine Sanjay Sharma.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the contentions at great length and declined to recall PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-25 and to examine Sanjay Sharma as a court witness. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) There is no dispute about the proposition of law that under Section 311 Cr.P.C, the Court has wide discretion to summon any witness or recall any witness, or re-examine any witness at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings. At the same time, the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised only to prevent failure of justice and for a just decision of the case. The main ground taken up by the Petitioner for recalling PW-3 Raj Kumar Bhati, PW-4 Sumit Nayyar, PW-6 Janesh Kumar and PW-25 SI Ram Avtar was that the prosecution had concealed the facts that Sanjay Sharma was son of the IO SI Ram Avtar Sharma.