RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 11.8.1997 by which the Additional Session Judge, Faridabad, declined to recall the prosecution witnesses whose evidence was already recorded long before. Papers before me indicate that the prosecution evidence in this case was concluded on 13.5.1996 and the statement of the accused has been concluded on 27.5.1996. Thereafter, on 16.1.1997 the accused submitted an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to invoke the indulgence of the court for recalling the two prosecution witnesses, mainly PW-2 and PW-3, on the ground that these two witnesses by swearing affidavit on 2.1.1997 declared that they, in fact, did not identify the assailants due to the darkness, and that earlier they deposed before the Court under the influence of the Police. Thereby they wanted to indicate that identification of the assailants by them during the course of their testimony was an outcome of pressure from the police.

(2.) THE Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the question of recalling the witnesses depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. He considered the time gap between recording of evidence, and recording of statement of accused on one side, and the date of swearing in the affidavits by these two witnesses on the other side, and formed the opinion that obviously these witnesses have been won over during the period during which case was awaiting the judgment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State on the other hand, in general, supported the order passed by the Trial Court.