BINOD RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is facing charge punishable under diverse sections of the Penal Code including 376 and 511. The case was lodged in December, 2012. The trial thereof was taken up in February, 2012 when witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined. The prosecutrix (P.W. 1) was examined on 9.2.2012. She could not be cross-examined and was discharged. Thereafter, two other witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution. An application dated 9.8.2012 at this stage was filed on behalf of the pros-prosecution to recall P.W. 1 for her cross-examination. The same was rejected by learned trial Judge vide order dated 4.2.2013 passed in S.T. No. 143/2008 which has been impugned in this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix could not be examined on account of non-availability of the counsel who was to cross-examine on behalf the defence. Immediately, after examination of two following witnesses, an application was filed for recall of P.W. 1 which has been rejected by learned trial court. Learned counsel submits that, in the interest of justice as also a fair trial, the defence be given at least one opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix in view of the statements made by her in her examination-in-chief which is divergent from the allegations made by her in the FIR. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the expenses to be borne in recall of P.W. 1.

(2.) I have heard the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) The trial is of the year 2008. The first P.W., the informant, was produced by the prosecution on 9.2.2012 and was examined. It further appears that thereafter two more witnesses were also examined by the prosecution. Immediately, thereafter, the application was filed for recall of P.W. 1 since she could not be cross-examined by the prosecution.