RAGHUNATH MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order -dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. No.16/34 of 1999 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and refused to recall P.Ws. 3,4,5 and 10 for further cross -examination.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the fact leading to filing of this CRLMC is that the petitioners face trial for the offence under Sections 302/324/34 of I.P.C. in the aforesaid case on the allegation that in furtherance of their common intention they voluntarily assaulted Subash Chandra Mallick with dangerous weapons leading to his death. At the stage of defence evidence on 23.11.2004, the accused -petitioners filed a petition with questionnaire appended thereto under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws. 3,4,5 and 10 for further cross -examination, on the ground that some material questions which were essential to be put to them for arriving at a just decision of the case were inadvertently left out during cross -examination. After hearing counsel for the parties the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the witnesses were cross -examination by Mr. Bramhananda Panda, Sr. Counsel of Cuttack at length on all aspects. He also examined the evidence of the witnesses keeping in mind the questionnaire appended to the petition and held that further cross -examination of P.Ws. 3,4, 5 and 10 was not essential to arrive at a just decision of the case and that the petition was filed long after the examination of the aforesaid witnesses was over, just to delay the disposal of the case. Accordingly, he rejected the petition. Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioners have filed this CRLMC as mentioned earlier.

(3.) AS submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners cross -examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 was over on 8.8.2001 while those of P.Ws. 5 and 10 on 18.9.2001 and 21.8.2002 respectively. So there is delay of about two years and four months in filing the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Of course delay alone is not a ground to reject a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This Section reads as follows : -