MAUJI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Mauji Ram petitioner against the order of the Session Judge, Sonepat, dated Ist June, 1985, by which he allowed the prayer of the Public Prosecutor to recall Om Singh PW3 who had earlier been examined by the prosecution.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to the present petition are as follows. Mauji Ram petitioner and his co-accused are being tried in the court of the Sessions Judge Sonepat, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After examining the prosecution witnesses including Om Singh PW-3 the prosecution closed its evidence. The petitioner and his co-accused were then examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after examining three defence witnesses they closed their evidence. The learned trial Judge then fixed the case for arguments on 22nd May, 1985. On 22nd May, 1985, the Police Prosecutor moved an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling Om Singh PW-3 to prove certain documents. The application was resisted by the defence, but the learned Sessions Judge allowed the same and ordered that Om Singh PW3 be recalled as a witness. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) IN the present case, as observed earlier, the prosecution had an opportunity of examining Om singh PW at an earlier stage. He did not refer to any documents which are sought to be produced at this stage by the prosecution. Nor any mention was made of the aforesaid documents in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was no justifiable ground for the learned trial Judge to allow the application of the Public Prosecutor at this stage. To allow the application at this stage would certainly amount to filling in the lacuna and undoing the case of the defence. I am afraid that by the mere insertion of the words in his order by the learned Sessions Judge that it was necessary for the just decision of the case to allow the application the requirement of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not fulfilled.