BINAND MIRIDIA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is facing trial in S.T. Case No.11/2021 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada for the alleged commission of offence under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., he questions the correctness of order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed by the Court below in allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C to recall Prosecution Witness No.1 for further examination.

(2.) Trial having commenced in the Court below, prosecution examined 22 witnesses including the autopsy surgeon Dr. Maheswar Das as P.W.1. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the case was posted for examination of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. At this stage prosecution filed a petition to recall P.W.1 for re-examination on the ground that the weapon of offence marked M.O.No.I was inadvertently not produced in the court during examination of P.W.1, which is essentially required for proper identification thereof. The accused filed a petition questioning the maintainability of the petition and on the ground that P.W.1 has already proved the query report given by him marked Ext.2 and his signature Ext.2/1 in course of which, he has mentioned the details of the weapon (axe). Therefore at this stage, if the prosecution is allowed to produce the weapon of offence again it would amount to patching up its lacuna, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Learned Sessions Judge considered the contentions raised by both the parties and held that the weapon of offence was not produced during examination of P.W.1 and that he is the best person to identify it. It was further held that it would not prejudice the accused in any manner rather it will clarify whether it was used in the commission of the crime or not. Accordingly, the petition was allowed as per the impugned order.

(3.) Heard Mr. B.P.Pradhan, learned for the Petitioner-accused, and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.