LAKSHMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2 3.90 two Public Witness s. were examined name- ly, Krishan Kumar and Shiv Narain. Whereas Shiv Narain was cross-examined, Krishan Kumar was not, despite opportunity. Much thereafter, an application was moved u/S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recal- ling PW1, Krishan Kumar besides other witnesses for cross-examination. The learned MM declined the request as far as Krishan Kumar is concerned. Hence this petition.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when PW1 Krishan Kumar was examined, the counsel for the petitioners was not available and came to the court only when PW2 Shiv Narain was under examination and that is why PW2 Shiv Narain was cross-examined and not Krisban Kumar who had, by that time, already left the court.

(3.) There is nothing on the record to lend support to the version noticed above. Rather the record shows that opportunity was granted to the defence counsel to LTOSS -examine PW1, Krishan Kumar but the same was not availed of. Significantly, even in the application under Section 311 the version now put forth about the absence of the counsel at the time of the examination of PWl Krishan Kumar is conspicuous by its absence. However, the fact remains that PWl Krishan Kumar was an extremely material witness and, in the absence of his cross-examination, his testimony may greatly prejudice the defence.