KARAMJIT SINGH @ KAMMI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge order dated 21.03.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge Patiala, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for recalling witness PW1 prosecutrix for further crossexamination has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts as stated are that, the petitioner was implicated in the FIR No.140 dated 23.07.2015 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 (N), 376, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (for short 'POCSO Act'). The case was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Pinky whereby she raised allegations against the petitioner in respect of raping her daughter. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted. The petitioner along with his brother were charge-sheeted to face trial for the aforesaid offences. The prosecutrix was examined and thereafter an application was submitted to recall the prosecutrix under section 311 Cr. P.C which application was dismissed. Aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Preetinder Ahluwalia learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that to establish the same it would be necessary to recall the prosecutrix as the previous defence counsel did not confront her with relevant questions. In the application filed, recalling of the witness was sought on several grounds. It is vehemently argued that Section 311 Cr.P.C permits recalling of witness at any stage if the evidence sought to be produced would facilitate in arriving at the truth. It is also argued that negligence of the defence counsel in putting relevant documents to the witness is sufficient ground for the court below to allow the application. Reliance is placed upon judgments rendered in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, 2013 3 RCR(Cri) 726, P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P., 2012 3 RCR(Cri) 653, Rajiv Sood vs. State of Punjab, 2016 1 RCR(Cri) 67.