KANDASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are facing trial in S.C.No. 252 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. They have been charged for offences under Sections 148, 149, 324 and 302 IPC r/w. Section 1091.P.C.

(2.) The case relates to the death of one Ranganayagi on 14.8.2005 at about 9.45 hours. In the course of trial, one Dr. Uma Manivannan was examined as PW-11. According to the petitioners, such witness deposed in keeping with what she has stated in the course of investigation during her chief examination and while she was cross-examined, she had given certain answers that would be favourable to the accused. At such stage, the learned Public Prosecutor before the trial Court has sought that such witness be treated as hostile which was objected by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the trial Court was pleased to treat such witness as hostile.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners urges that when the evidence of the witness in chief examination has been in keeping with Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, then the lower Court fell into an error in permitting the prosecution to treat such witness as hostile merely because some answers in favour of the accused were elicited from her in the course of cross-examination.