LANGPU TAKHE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which needs to be addressed by this Court is as to whether recalling of witnesses under Sec. 311 of CRPC (Sec. 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) can be entertained in the present case or not. The instant petition is filed against the order dtd. 28/4/2025 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case no. 45/2015 (YPA) by which, the recalling of prosecution witnesses No. 2 & 3 was rejected. The trial Court had passed the said rejection order mainly on the ground of engaging new counsel for defence, who had prayed to examine the witnesses again after the said witnesses were already examined and discharged after cross-examination. The trial court observed that if the same is allowed, there would be chaos in trial of the case. The trial court, by considering various judgments passed by various Hon'ble courts, had held that change of counsel cannot be a ground for recalling witnesses. The trial court had also placed reliance on a Supreme Court's judgement passed in Jagdish Singh Khehar Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr., reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 510, wherein it was held that power under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C can be exercised only for valid reasons. Furthermore, the trial court had observed that PW-2 & 3 were examined on 3/3/2016 and 17/5/2018 respectively before the said court and that the case was pending since the year 2015 and that further delay in concluding the trial would not be in the interest of justice.On the said grounds, the learned trial Court observed that the application filed by the petitioner having not revealed any valid reasons was liable to be interfered with and the same was rejected vide Order dtd. 28/4/2025. The trial Court thereafter fixed the matter forappearance of the accused and for examination of the Investigating Officer.

(2.) Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the instant criminal revision petition under Sec. 442, read with Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (shortly here-in-after referred to as BNSS, 2023). The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that recalling of prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 is required for theends of justice. He submitted that there were many contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and PW No. 3 which were not proved in accordance with law and that they are required to be recalled for the just decision of the case. He, as such has placed the contradictions as mentioned here-in-below.

(3.) Mr. S D Roy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that PW No. 2, namely Shri Tai Chanam, had stated in his statements recorded under Sec. 161Cr.P.C i.e. before the investigating officer that on 12/3/2013, he along with two other friends and one Rahim Ali were together at a place where his father had 3-4 shops and was planning and discussing to open a shop in one of the room and thatthereafter they found the weather very hot and they came out of the shop and were sitting in a junction area. He stated that at that juncture, the petitioner reached the spot and started arguing as to why theywere sitting so late at night, at which this witness replied that his residence is nearby. However, the petitioner quarrelled with this witness as well as others. This witness further stated that thereafter the other two friends left for their home and he along with said Rahim Ali left for his residence. Furthermore, he said that immediately thereafter the petitioner arrived in a motorcycle armed with machete and when this witness tried to escape, the petitioner chased him and attacked him with the weapon on the neck of this witness in front of his residence on the roadside, and that the petitioner alsoattacked this witness on his face. He then stated that said Rahim Ali shouted and the petitioner fled away from the spot.