R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 7665 of 1996 in SC 107 of 1995 on the file of Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madras on 3-1-996, following the petition filed under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution, is challenged in this revision, on the ground that the prosecution is not entitled to ask for recalling the witness examined already for the purpose of treating the witness as hostile after the examination of other prosecution witnesses.

(2.) The Inspector of Police/respondent herein filed the final report against the accused/petitioner for the offence under S. 302, IPC alleging the crime of the murder of one Venkatesan on 13-5-1994 night. The brother's daughter of the deceased Venkatesan, by name, Dhanalakshmi was examined as P.W. 1 in Chief as well as cross. After completing her examination, other witnesses were also admittedly examined by the prosecution. For the reasons that she had stated something in the cross-examination which was contrary to what was stated by her during the course of her chief examination, and which was noticed by the prosecution subsequently, a petition under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure was filed with a request to recall P.W. 1 for the purpose of treating her hostile. The petition was objected to by and behalf of the accused/revision petitioner herein. After hearing both the parties and going through the case-laws cited by and on behalf of the respective parties, learned trial Judge has allowed the said petition and permitted the prosecution to recall P.W. 1. Aggrieved at this, this revision has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the Bar for the respective parties, for and against the impugned order. To appreciate the points involved in this case, it has become necessary for me to advert S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs like this :-"