BEZAWADA VARA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this criminal petition is to the order dated 08.08.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2019 in S.C.No.131 of 2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

(2.) The petitioner/accused has been facing trial for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC in respect of the death of the petitioner's wife and minor children. Be that it may, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2019 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination on the submission that during the earlier cross-examination of P.W.1 certain questions relating to omissions and contradictions are not posed to P.W.1. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court mainly on the observation that the P.W.1 is a 70 years old lady and with much difficulty, she was brought to the court for examination at the first instance and she cannot move out and in those circumstances, it is difficult to bring her again to the court. It is further observed that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, the property particulars of the accused were already elicited through P.W.1 and therefore, the recall on that ground is not sustainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in fact three suggestions relating to suicide note allegedly left by the deceased were not put to P.W.1 but not the questions relating to the property aspects of the accused family. Learned counsel would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased left a suicide note mentioning therein that the accused is the cause for her death. The accused challenges the same. Learned counsel would submit that in the earlier cross-examination, no suitable suggestions touching the aspect of the suicide note were put to P.W.1. Therefore, it is imperative that P.W.1 is to be recalled so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to give the suggestions relating to the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased. He would submit that in order to effectively defend the case of the petitioner/accused, recall of P.W.1 may be ordered. He assured that except giving three suggestions, he is not going to cross-examine P.W.1 on any other aspects. Learned counsel filed a memo, wherein he formulated the three suggestions touching the aspect of suicide note. Learned counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the recall petition.