RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) On hearing either sides, it has come out that the stand taken by the court below through Annexure-A order is not correct. Five occurrence witnesses were cited by the prosecution in the case involving serious offences, including the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. The prosecution is mainly relying on circumstantial evidence and therefore, the last seen together theory has got much importance. All the aforesaid 5 witnesses were supposed to speak regarding the said aspect also.

(3.) In that context, it seems that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has forwarded a request for deferring the cross-examination CWs 1 to 5 till the chief examination of all the said witnesses. The court below ought to have granted the said request. It is not a violation of Sec. 309 Crimial P.C. as highlighted by the court below. The court below ought to have allowed the said request.