AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.—In course of a trial where the accuseds have been facing charges for offence committed u/s 307/302/34 IPC after the examination of defence witness was over, an application was filed invoking section 311 CrPC for permitting the defence to recall PW/15 the investigating officer of the case and the ballistic expert for their further cross-examination. The trial court rejected such prayer. Hence, this criminal revision. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order and the application filed before the court below as also the deposition of the aforesaid three witnesses.
The PW/15 was sought to be cross-examined on the following points
a) Whether PW/4 disclosed to him at the time of the incident the mother of the accused Uttam asked her son to bring out the gun and to open fire.
b) Whether the PW/8 disclosed to him that after the gun was brought the mother of the accused Uttam said all will be finished.
c) Whether the PW/9 disclosed to him Ruma and Kananbala i.e. the mother of accused Uttam asked the other accused to finish everybody.
d) When PW/9 requested Bhaja to pacify them, Bhaja snatched the gun from Uttam and handed over the same to his nephew and Uttam again took the gun from him and opened fire.
e) The PW/15, the investigating officer was also sought to be cross-examined to bring on record how many days after the incident those three witnesses were examined by him.
f) The PW/12 the ballistic expert was sought to be cross-examined on the point whether the bullets injuries caused to two persons can be caused by firing from a double barrel gun because it was the case of the prosecution at the time of incident a double barrel gun was used.
The right to cross-examination of a witness by the defence is the integral part of fair trial and is a very valuable right of an accused to establish his innocence. Ordinarily, such right cannot be denied unless it is shown the cross-examination of the witnesses would be a futile exercise.
Now, going through the depositions of PW/4, PW/8 and PW/9, I find during their cross-examination each one of them was confronted on that score and it was suggested to them those facts were not stated to the police by them. The PW/4, PW/8 and PW/9 denied such suggestion and claimed that those facts were stated to the I.O. Therefore, the cross-examination of PW/15 the investigating officer is very much necessary on that score to impeach the credit of those witnesses, similarly, when the said witnesses disclosed the incident to the PW/15 the investigating officer and after how many days is also quite relevant. Therefore, the defence must not be denied to cross-examine the PW/15 the investigating officer of the case on the above point. I also find the cross-examination of the ballistic expert is also necessary.
Having regard to the facts as aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order and direct the learned trial court to issue notice upon the Public Prosecutor as well as upon the accused persons to appear in this court within a fortnight from the date of issuance of such notice and the trial court in their presence shall fix a date for cross-examination of those two witnesses only on the point as herein before referred and after such cross-examination is over the court shall at once go to the next stage of the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.
The learned advocate of the petitioner as also the State are directed to take necessary steps in this regard.
The application stands allowed.
The criminal section is directed to communicate this order to the trial court by special messenger at the cost of the petitioner to be deposited by day after tomorrow. Criminal Section is also directed to deliver urgent xerox certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.