SHRIDHAR WAMAN SURUSHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scope of recalling and re-examination of a witness under the provisions of section 311, Cri.P.C. arise for considaration in this criminal application.

(2.) The applicant has approached this Court against an order dated 11-9-1985 passed by the J.M.F.C., Buldana in Criminal Case No. 81 R/83 granting permission to the complainant to recall and re-examine her in her complaint case against her husband under section 494 I.P.C.

(3.) The relevant facts are that Narmada filed a complaint case against Shridhar and 21 others for an offence under section 494 read with section 34, I.P.C. She alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of Shridhar and during the subsistence of their first marriage, Shridhar performed second marriage with accused No. 16. She further alleged that the other accused person abetted the offence by bringing about the second marriage. It is her case that after her marriage with Shridhar in February, 1972, she was deserted for some time and there were certain legal proceedings between them. It appears that Narmada examined herself as witness No. 1 and also examined other witnesses and closed her case. Thereafter, the accused was also examined under section 313, Cri.P.C. During his examination as an accused, he completely denied his marriage with Narmada. At this stage, and application under section 311 Cri.P.C. was filed by her for recalling and re-examining her in the trial. It was her contention in the said application that she never expected denial of her marriage and it came as a surprise to her. She further stated that she is an illiterate lady and was not knowing the legal consequences of denial of the marriage and therefore, she was compelled to make the aforesaid application for recalling and re-examining her. She stated in her application that she had filed and application for restitution of conjugal rights during the stained relation with her husband, but the matter was reconciled and a pursis was filed by the parties to that effect in Court and the husband had expressed his readiness and willingness to reside and cohabit with her. She further stated in her application that she was cross-examined and during her cross-examination, the suggestion of denial of marriage was also introduced by the accused. Thus, she claimed to be recalled and re-examined for the aforesaid reasons by application at Exhibit 50. It gives impression that probably, she wanted to prove the pursis in which terms of reconciliation were stated. On hearing the parties the learned trial Court allowed the application on the ground that, in the interest of justice and for the just decision of the case, it was essential to recall and re-examine the complainant. It is this order of the trial Court which has been challenged in this criminal application.