Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Namdeo Arjun Rangari, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the orders dated 27.11.2009 and 1.12.2009 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.213 of 2008. The trial court had rejected the applicant's application (Ex.40) for recalling P.W.1 Meenaxi Meshram and P.W.2 Bharti Meshram for further cross-examination to bring omissions and contradictions on record, and also rejected an adjournment application (Ex.41) for cross-examination of Dr. Sandhya (P.W.6) due to counsel's illness. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the application Ex.40 was vague but some omissions were significant. The court held that the accused should not suffer due to want of skill in the conduct of his case. Regarding the doctor, the court noted that the accused was represented by a lawyer who was absent, and thus the accused deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor. The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order below Ex.40, and directed the trial court to recall P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.6 for cross-examination limited to omissions and contradictions for P.W.1 and P.W.2, and full cross-examination for the doctor. The court also granted liberty to apply for examination of the Investigating Officer.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witnesses - Sections 311, 309 CrPC - Opportunity to Cross-Examine - The accused sought recall of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.6 (doctor) for further cross-examination due to counsel's inadvertence in bringing omissions on record and counsel's illness preventing cross-examination of the doctor. The High Court allowed the recall, holding that the accused should not suffer due to want of skill in conduct of his case, and that the trial court must be satisfied before recalling witnesses. (Paras 4-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Cross-Examination - Omissions and Contradictions - The application for recall of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was vague but the High Court found some omissions significant and granted opportunity limited to omissions and contradictions. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Cross-Examination - Medical Officer - The accused was denied cross-examination of the doctor due to counsel's absence. The High Court found the accused deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for recall of witnesses for further cross-examination due to counsel's inadvertence and illness.
Final Decision
Criminal Application No. 3639 of 2009 is allowed. Order below Ex.40 is set aside. P.W.1 Meenaxi and P.W.2 Bharti shall be recalled, so also Dr. Sandhya (P.W.6). The trial court shall give opportunity to the accused to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2 only in relation to omissions and contradictions and the Doctor. Liberty to apply to the trial court for examination of Investigating Officer.
Law Points
- Recall of witnesses
- cross-examination
- omissions and contradictions
- opportunity to accused
- counsel's inadvertence
- counsel's illness
