VIJAY Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts in Sessions Case No.92/2014 arising out of FIR No.19/2014 (P.S.D.B.Gupta Road) whereby the Trial Court has refused to recall PW-1 (Ram Babu), PW- 2 (Bishi Devi) and PW-5 (Thakur Das) on the ground that the witnesses were earlier recalled and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine them. The Trial Court was of the view that if the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were not cross examined on some of the points on which they were required to be questioned, that by itself would not give any right to the petitioners to have them recalled.

(2.) It appears from the records that an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the defence seeking recall of PWs.1 and 2. The Trial Court took note of the fact that they had been cross examined at length on 21.07.2014 and 20.08.2014. Even though there was no ground for allowing the application for recall of the aforesaid witnesses, but on consideration of the fact that both the witnesses were residents of Delhi and that the evidence of prosecution was in progress, the aforesaid witnesses were recalled on payment of cost of Rs.500/- each to be paid to PWs.1 & 2, by order dated 15.10.2014. In the aforesaid order it was made clear that only one opportunity would be given to the defence to cross examine the aforesaid two witnesses regarding the handwriting of the deceased and the writing on the suicide note.

(3.) Later, again an application came to be filed on behalf of the accused/applicant seeking recall of PWs.1, 2 & 5 for further cross examination. In the aforesaid application, it was averred that some important and vital questions were left to be put to the witnesses. It was also stated that while deposing before the Trial Court, the aforesaid witnesses introduced new facts in their deposition and thereby improved their versions. The aforesaid witnesses were not confronted with their earlier statements made during investigation. It was reiterated that no questions were put to the aforesaid witnesses about their conduct and delay in making such statements. Even suggestions were not put to PW-5 that he had made a false statement.