SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar. During the trial, the prosecution examined one witness namely Jugal Kishore. He did not support the prosecution version. On request, the learned trial Court allowed the Public Prosecutor to ask the witness such questions as are put in cross -examination. Thereafter, the accused was allowed to cross -examine him. After conclusion of the cross -examination of the witness by the, accused the learned trial Court put certain questions to the witness and the witness replied the same. The accused made a prayer for cross -examining the witnesses again. The learned trial Court vide its order dated May 7, 1982 refused that permission. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) OF course a party as of right is not entitled to. cross -examine the witness when the Court examines him under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But if the answers given by the witness in such examination are adverse to a party then it is desirable that such party should be given a chance to cross examine that witness. In the above conclusion of mine I find support from the observations made in re Mukesh Ramachandra Reddy and others, A.I. R. 1958 Andhra Pradesh 165 : "This section enables a Judge to ask the witnesses any question, in any manner, the answer to which in his opinion would aid in the discovery of truth. But the parties have no right to cross examine any witness except with the permission of the Court. No doubt, the discretion will have to be exercised judicially and ordinarily the Judge would give the requisite permission if the answers given are adverse to the party who seeks the said permission."

(3.) IN the present case, in cross -examination by the accused the witness had stated that he had made the statement before the committing Magistrate at the instance of his mother in law and that in fact he had not seen anything. It appears that in view of that statement, the accused did not further cross -examine the witness about the incident. However, after the close of the cross -examine by the accused, the court put the following question to the said witness : "In your statement before the committing Magistrate referred to above you have stated that on the day of Baisakhi Sunita Rani had come to your house and accused Sarbjit alias Jit Lal came to your house in the evening time and had given beatings to Sunita Rani and taken to his house. You have also stated that you had correctly stated before the Magistrate but in your cross -examination you have stated that you made statement before the Magistrate on the asking of your mother -in -law. Please let us know if this fact that Sunita had come to your house and was given beating by the accused Sarbjit in your presence was also got recorded by you on the asking of your mother -in -law Bimla Devi - The witness gave the following answer : - "This incident of beating given by the accused to Sunita Rani actually took place in my house in my presence and this fact was stated by me correctly of my own before the committing Magistrate because, it had actually happened. In view of the above reply, it was a fit case where the trial Court should have exercise its discretion in favour of the accused as the above reply is very much adverse to him. As mentioned earlier the accused had not cross -examined the witness about that incident in view of the replies given by him during his cross -examination.