(1.) THE Petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.C. No. 51 of 1984, challenges the order of the Second Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu dated 4th February, 1986 made in Crl. M.P. No. 323 of 1985 allowing the prosecution to recall P.W.3, Dr. Chithra for further examination -in -chief.
(2.) A few facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision. The Petitioner is being prosecuted for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. After closure of the prosecution case, the Petitioner was questioned under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, the prosecution as well as the defence submitted their arguments, written and oral, before the learned trial Judge. The Public Prosecutor pleaded for time to reply to the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and such time as prayed for was granted. While so, on 17 -12 -1985, learned Public Prosecutor filed Crl. M.P. No. 323 of 1985, under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure to recall P.W.3 for further examination -in -chief. In the petition, the prosecution had stated, that Dr. Chithra (P.W.3), had not deposed pointedly that the injury on the victim girl could have been caused at the time alleged. The said witness had given opinion that the victim girl could have been forcibly raped in view of the irregular vaginal tear in the vagina wall, which had been sutured. The doctor had also deposed that recent intercourse could have taken place and the said fact had been mentioned in Exhibit P.2, certificate issued by the Medical Officer. The petition also reads that in the interests of justice, P.W.3 had to be recalled for the purpose of eliciting her opinion as to the time of the alleged rape, since such evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case.
(3.) ARGUMENTS were advanced by both Counsel and ultimately the trial Judge passed a short order, that he was of opinion, that recalling of the witness (P.W.3) was essential to the just decision of the case.