Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddharth Dashrath Deshpande, was the accused in Criminal Case No. 609/2008 pending before the trial court at Darwha, arising from a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, Pramod Laxmanrao Badhe, in 2008. During the trial, after the complainant's examination-in-chief and cross-examination were completed, the accused filed an application (Exh. 31) on 20.4.2009 seeking to recall the complainant for further cross-examination. The accused claimed to have discovered certain documents that were in the handwriting of the complainant and were important to his defence. The trial court rejected the application, and the revisional court (Criminal Revision Application No. 10/2009) confirmed that order on 7.11.2009, primarily on the ground that the accused had been delaying the trial and that the documents might not be correct. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that denial of the opportunity to cross-examine on the new documents would cause prejudice to the accused. The respondent's counsel and the APP argued that the accused had a history of seeking adjournments and changing counsel to delay proceedings, and that the application was a further dilatory tactic. The High Court examined the impugned orders and noted that while the accused had indeed engaged in delaying tactics, the application and the documents could not be summarily rejected without examining their relevance and correctness during evidence. The revisional court's observation that the documents 'may not be correct' was premature and improper. The court held that the right to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend oneself are paramount, and that recalling the witness for further cross-examination was necessary to do justice. However, to compensate for the delay caused, the court imposed costs of Rs. 500 on the accused, payable to the complainant, as a condition for allowing the recall. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to recall the complainant for further cross-examination on payment of costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witness - Right to Fair Trial - Section 311 CrPC - The accused sought recall of the complainant for further cross-examination based on newly discovered documents allegedly in the complainant's handwriting. The trial court and revisional court rejected the application citing delay tactics. The High Court held that the application and documents could not be thrown out without examining their correctness in evidence, and that the revisional court's rejection on the ground that documents may not be correct was improper. The court allowed the recall subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the complainant to compensate for delay. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in Trial - Costs - Section 311 CrPC - The High Court acknowledged the accused's conduct in prolonging the trial but held that the right to fair trial and opportunity to defend outweighs mere delay. The court imposed costs of Rs. 500 on the accused to be paid to the complainant as a condition for allowing the recall. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and revisional court erred in rejecting the accused's application to recall the complainant for further cross-examination based on newly discovered documents, thereby violating the accused's right to a fair trial.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to recall the complainant for further cross-examination, subject to the accused paying costs of Rs. 500 to the complainant.
Law Points
- Right to fair trial
- Recall of witness for cross-examination
- Opportunity to defend
- Prejudice to accused
- Delay in trial
