SOM DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C for re-cross examination of witnesses Anchal Saini (PW-3) and Devender Kumar (PW-4) has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out by the petitioner in the present petition, is that he is facing trial in Session Case No.91 of 2014 in FIR No.150 dated 11.03.2014 under Sections 323, 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act at Police Station City Thanesar. The petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2014. The FIR, in question, was registered on the basis of statement of prosecutrix. As per allegations, the prosecutrix was 151/2 years of age and was examined as PW-3 and her father, namely, Sh. Devender Kumar was examined as PW-4 on 10.09.2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Some of the prosecution witnesses were also examined. However, during pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for permission to re-cross-examine PW-3 Anchal Saini as she could not be cross examined about her identity which was doubtful and PW-4 Devender Kumar as he could not be cross-examined on the part of writing by the counsel of the revisionist-petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to discover truth for administering fair trial, which can be exercised by summoning any person at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. Said witnesses were examined but they were not properly cross-examined. Learned counsel also submits that their re-cross-examination is necessary for just decision of the case and no prejudice is going to be caused to the other party. The purpose is not to fill up the lacuna but still, the application moved by the petitioner has been declined.