MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in Session Trial No.342/2010 dated 16.01.2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed identification memo to be exhibited, after completion of cross -examination of prosecution witness Vallabh Gupta (PW -1).

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this application are that the prosecution witness Vallabh Gupta was examined in Session Trial No.342/2010. His cross -examination was completed on 16.01.2014 and after completion of his cross -examination after para 37, a note was appended by the trial Judge, in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed identification memo to be exhibited on the ground that it was inadvertently remained to be exhibited and it was prayed by the Additional Public Prosecutor that it remained to be exhibited during the examination -in -chief, as it was not properly placed in the record. On this ground, he sought permission of the Court to exhibit the document during the re -examination and then the learned Additional Sessions Judge opined that in the interest of justice, the fault on the part of the prosecution should not be allowed to result in failure of justice and, therefore, the permission was granted. After this, the prosecution in para 38 produced to exhibit the identification memo as Ex.P/8 and, thereafter, the learned counsel for the defence was allowed to cross -examine the witness on identification memo and from para 39 to 42 in detail, the witness was cross -examined. The note appended by the learned Additional Session Judge after para 37 in the deposition sheet may be reproduced hereunder for benefit of proper consideration. <JUDIMG>1240188-1</JUDIMG>

(3.) The learned counsel for the defence relied on judgment of Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 9 SCC 152 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that purpose of re -examination is only to get clarification of some doubts created in cross -examination. One cannot supplement the examination -in -chief by way of re - examination and for the first time, start introducing totally new facts, which have no concern with the cross -examination. He particularly cites para 26 of the judgment which is as under: -