ESAKKIAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition is filed to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District dated 26.06.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.4463 of 2019 in SC No.131 of 2015 in Crime No.85 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Police Station, Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli District and consequently, permit the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 forthwith.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case and he is the rustic villager and he had engaged a counsel, but unfortunately, the counsel had failed to cross examine the witnesses on the day of their appearance for examination in chief. He would submit that if an opportunity is not given to the petitioner to cross examine them, it will amount to the case of no defence, resulting in conviction putting the petitioner to great hardship.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner has not been vigilant. He would submit that the case is of the year 2008 and the case was taken up on file as PRC No.54 of 2015 and committed to the Court of Sessions Judge on 10.04.2015 as S.C.No.131 of 2015. From the date, when the case was made over to the trial Court, the petitioner remained absconding and non-bailable warrant was issued against him and on 01.07.2015, the petitioner surrendered and the non-bailable warrant was recalled and on 28.02.2017, L.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and that on 07.03.2017, concerned Sub-Inspector of Police had submitted a report that L.W.1 was reported dead and thereby L.W.1 was dispensed with. Thereafter, P.Ws.6 and 7 were examined in chief on 17.03.2017 and P.Ws.9 and 10 were examined on 24.04.2017 and once again, the petitioner absconded and non-bailable warrant was issued and recalled. Thereafter, P.W.11 was examined on 27.12.2018 and P.W.12 was examined on 20.03.2018. He would further submit that the case is pending for the examination of Investigating Officer. He would further submit that the trial Court finding that the petition to recall has been filed belatedly, had rightly dismissed the petition.