Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mangesh Kisanrao Dahe, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 18.7.2011 passed by the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2010. By the impugned order, the trial court allowed the prosecution to re-examine P.W. 4 Nanda Narayanrao Nandane on a limited question of ambiguity. The background of the case is that P.W. 4 initially stated that she saw the incident, but later deposed that she came to the spot after the incident. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) sought permission to re-examine her to clear this ambiguity. The applicant, who is the accused in the trial, opposed the application, arguing that there was no ambiguity and that the prosecution was trying to fill gaps in its evidence. The High Court heard the parties and noted that the trial court had allowed re-examination only on the limited question of ambiguity. The court observed that the power under Section 311 CrPC is wide and can be exercised at any stage to secure a just decision. Re-examination to clear ambiguity is permissible and does not cause prejudice to the accused, especially since the accused would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness after re-examination. The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the trial court's order. The court emphasized that the re-examination was not to fill gaps but to clarify a contradiction in the witness's testimony, which is within the scope of Section 311 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Re-examination of Witness - Section 311 CrPC - Ambiguity - The trial court allowed re-examination of P.W. 4 to clarify whether she saw the incident or came later, as her earlier deposition was contradictory. The High Court upheld the order, holding that re-examination to clear ambiguity is permissible under Section 311 CrPC and does not cause prejudice if the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Section 311 CrPC - Scope - The power under Section 311 CrPC is wide and can be exercised at any stage to secure just decision. Re-examination to clear ambiguity is within the court's discretion and does not amount to filling gaps in prosecution case. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing re-examination of P.W. 4 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to clear an ambiguity in her testimony.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the trial court's order allowing re-examination of P.W. 4 to clear ambiguity.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC permits re-examination of witness to clear ambiguity
- not to fill gaps in prosecution evidence
- Re-examination limited to ambiguous portion
- No prejudice to accused if opportunity for cross-examination given
