LAL MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by Addi­tional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (B.C.) Act, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 450 of 2009 State v. Riyazul and others whereby the application moved by defence for recalling PW-1 Hansmukhi for further cross-examination was rejected. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the accused filed a large number of love letters written by PW-1 Hansmukhi in defence. These love letters were not available when PW-1 was being cross-examined and, therefore, application was moved by defence for recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination to confront her with the love letters written by her.

(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. supported the impugned order. The application under section 311 Cr. P.C. was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the accused-persons have not written in the application that these letters were not in their custody at the time of cross-examination of PW-1. The accused could have confronted PW-1 with these letters at the time of her cross-examination, and it is not necessary to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination. Having considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and the orders passed by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Whether these letters were in possession of accused when PW-1 was earlier examined is a matter to be in­quired into when the accused-persons pro­duce defence evidence to prove these let­ters, if necessary. The defence alleges that the love letters were written by PW-1 to the accused. In these circumstances, it will be in the interest of Justice to confront PW-1 with these so called love letters to find out whether these letters were written by her to the accused and also whether these letters are in her handwriting.