SAMUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against order dated 17.7.2013 passed by learned trial Court dismissing application filed by petitioner -accused under Section 311 Cr. P.C. for recalling PW1 prosecutrix and PW2 Suresh, i.e., father of the prosecutrix for their further cross -examination. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, petitioner -accused is facing trial in FIR No. 25 dated 16.1.2011 under Sections 363 and 366A IPC, registered at Police Station Sampla, before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Charges were already framed, material witnesses already examined, evidence of the prosecution already concluded and the case was at the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., when the present application was moved for recalling the witnesses. Ground taken is that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 164 Cr. P.C. and 161 Cr. P.C. and that their earlier depositions before the Court were under pressure of the police and that now they intend to narrate the true version of the occurrence.

(3.) HOWEVER , it has been observed by learned trial Court that witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross -examination. Statements of these witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. or 164 Cr. P.C. during investigation was earlier in the knowledge of the petitioner. Copies of the same were also supplied to him. It seems that witnesses are being recalled for further cross -examination so that they may not support the prosecution version and may resile from their previous statements. The motive for moving this application is not to advance the cause of justice but to thwart the same.