KANTIPUDI JAYASEELA Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is C.W. 1. She filed the petition under Sec. 319(1)(4)(a), Cr. P.C. praying to issue proceedings to commence trial afresh on the ground that the 6th respondent was impleaded as 5th accused. The petitioner is the wife of one Sudhaker. On report given by P.W. 15, the case was registered under Sec. 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. in Cr. No. 154/90 against A.1 to A.4. The III-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada tried the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34, IPC. The trial commenced on 24-2-1992 and 11 prosecution witnesses were examined by 28-2-1992. On 28-2-1992 the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 311, Cr. P.C. to examine L.Ws. 6 and 7, who are no other than the petitioner and her mother-in-law as Court Witnesses. They were also examined as C.Ws. 1 and 2. Subsequently, P.Ws. 12 to 19 were examined. The prosecution evidence was closed on 20-11-1992. Section 313, Cr. P.C. examination was also over. The case was fixed for arguments on 7-1-1993.

(2.) At this juncture, C.W. 1 (Petitioner) filed a petition under Section 319, Cr. P.C. to add P.W. 6 as one of the accused. She also filed an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. to examine 1) Bandari alias Badumuri Ramu, 2) Undeti Nageshwara Rao, 3) Kareemullah and 4) Nakka Nageshwara Rao as prosecution witnesses. Both the petitions were allowed by a common order dated 21-3-1994. Two revisions were filed before this Court by G. Venkateshwara Raju alias Peda Babu (PW. 6) and the same were dismissed. Thereafter P.W. 6 was impleaded as A. 5. At this juncture, the counsel appearing for A. 5 filed a memo dated 6-10-1997 stating that A. 5 desired to cross-examine P.Ws. 12, 15, 17, 19 and C.Ws. 1 and 2. The proceedings were issued. At that stage, C.W. 1 filed the petition under Section 319(1)(4)(a) of Cr. P. C.

(3.) It is submitted that by virtue of Sec. 319, Cr. P.C. the proceedings in respect of A.5 shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses are to be re-heard. This petition was contested. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the petitioner cannot compel the Court to conduct re-trial under the guise of Section 319(4)(a), Cr. P.C. It is always the privilege of the prosecutor to examine such of the witnesses required to prove the case of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the evidence of some of the witnesses is not helpful to anybody. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine all the witnesses de novo.