AMZAD Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.No.17983/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.89/2013 registered under Sections 363/342/376 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act at PS Mayur Vihar. Order dated 10.08.2015 reveals that the prosecution has already completed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. When the case was fixed for defence evidence, the instant application to recall the prosecutrix was moved to confront her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that X's cross-examination is necessary for the just decision of the case as certain questions regarding the statements given by her under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. were not put to her in the cross-examination by the previous counsel. Reliance has been placed on P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P., 2012 7 SCC 56.

(3.) The prosecutrix / victim was examined on 28.09.2013. On that day, she was partly cross-examined. On 04.02.2014, she was again cross-examined at length. Apparently, the petitioner did not move any application to recall her at the earliest. The instant application has been filed when statement of the petitioner has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the trial is at its fag end. Statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. were available to the petitioner at the time of her crossexamination on previous two dates. She cannot be compelled to appear time and again for examination merely because a new counsel has been engaged by the petitioner who intends to put certain more questions to her in the cross-examination.