2017 (1) TMI 1497 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to further cross-examine PW-9 confining questions with regard to the nature of weapon used - Held that - The conclusion given by the Court below is not correct as it is the cross-examination which forms the evidence and on the basis of evidence available on record; it is to be determined whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is given right to further cross-examine PW-9 who shall be confining his questions with regard to the nature of weapon used.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C for recalling witness for further cross-examination.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 passed by the Trial Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to recall a witness, PW-9, for further cross-examination regarding the nature of the weapon used in a robbery case where the petitioner was accused. The petitioner's counsel argued that the cross-examination of PW-9 was crucial for the ends of justice. The State vehemently opposed the petitioner's request, stating that changing counsel does not grant the right to recall a witness. The Trial Court had initially rejected the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, alleging ulterior motives. The High Court, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the cross-examination is essential for determining the petitioner's guilt or innocence. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted the petitioner the right to further cross-examine PW-9 specifically on the nature of the weapon used in the robbery case.

The High Court's decision highlighted the importance of cross-examination in establishing evidence and determining the accused's involvement in the offense. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court's conclusion regarding the petitioner's motives for recalling the witness was incorrect. The High Court's judgment focused on ensuring fair trial procedures and upholding the principles of natural justice. By allowing the petitioner's request for further cross-examination of PW-9 on a specific point related to the case, the High Court aimed to serve the interests of justice and maintain the integrity of the legal process. The judgment ultimately granted the petitioner's petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Trial Court to permit the requested cross-examination, limited to the nature of the weapon used in the robbery case.