SANDEEP KAUR @ SHEEPA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dtd. 29/5/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for recalling of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 SI Jarnail Singh, PW-3 ASI Kulwinder Singh and PW-5 ASI Ajay Kumar for the purpose of further cross-examination has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid prosecution witnesses for effective cross-examination has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Referring to Annexures P-3 to P-5 i.e. examination-in-chief and incomplete cross-examination of the aforesaid witness, learned counsel has submitted that the earlier cross-examination of these witnesses was superficial and ineffective and the right to an effective cross-examination is a fundamental component of a fair trial. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in custody during COVID-19 pandemic i.e. when the functioning of the Court was largely disrupted and the presence of the accused was exempted and during this period, the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were examined and hence the petitioner could not fully avail the opportunity of cross-examination of these witnesses due to the circumstances beyond his control. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled principle of law that the recall of witnesses can be permitted in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside and prays for recall of the aforesaid key witnesses to conduct proper and effective cross-examination in the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Referring to the reply dtd. 30/7/2025 filed by the State, learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 were examined-in-chief on 6/9/2021 whereas and PW-5 was examined-in-chief on 15/11/2021 respectively. All these witnesses were duly cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner on 25/4/2022, following which the prosecution evidence was closed on the same date. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to effectively cross-examine these witnesses. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not shown any justifiable or compelling reason for seeking recall of the aforesaid witnesses after a considerable lapse of time. Furthermore, the instant application is an afterthought, especially when the case has already progressed to the stage of defence evidence and arguments. According to State counsel, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the instant application for recalling the aforesaid witnesses by a well-reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.