UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is undergoing trial for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner being the accused had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to recall PW.1, Rai Singh for his cross-examination in regard to affidavit filed by the said witness more than 12 months after recording of his evidence. The aforesaid application of the petitioner/accused has been rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2012.

(2.) Shri M.M.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that after recording the statement of Rai Singh (PW.1), he has submitted an affidavit before the Trial Court in which he has stated that under pressure, earlier he has given the statement before the Court and now he wants to put the true facts before the Court, therefore, he should be summoned for further cross-examination. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.,1997 1 MPWN 138. In fact, the judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a reasoned judgment, but a small order and was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.

(3.) It may be noted that in the present case, the evidence of PW.1, Rai Singh was recorded on 22.9.2011. On 19.6.2012 prosecution evidence has been closed and on 3.7.2012, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., thereafter the case was posted for defence evidence and the accused has examined two witnesses in his defence.