JEYASEELAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the prosecution to cross examine a witness viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uvari Police Station and to mark a complaint that was given to him by P.W.1.

(2.) The petitioners are facing trial before the Court below for an offence under Sections 294 (b), 342, 302 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and none of the witnesses were cross examined by the petitioners. At this stage, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to cross examine a new witness, not shown as a witness in the final report, in order to mark a complaint given to him by P.W.1 and this complaint also does not form part of the final report filed by the prosecution.

(3.) This application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that P.W.1 has not spoken about giving any complaint against the accused persons even in the statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. For the first time, when P.W.1 was in the witness box, she made a statement to that effect. The prosecution cannot introduce any new witness or file any additional document without the same being the part of the final report and the prosecution has to necessarily seek for further investigation and file a further report, wherein, the statement of the additional witness and the additional document can be brought before the Court and this will give an opportunity to the accused persons to exactly know the materials that are available against them. Without doing so, the attempt made by the prosecution is only to fill up lacuna and the accused persons will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if the 311 application is allowed.