AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Seshasayana Reddy
This Criminal Petition has been taken out u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 to A3 in Sessions Case No.225 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, to quash the order, dated 09.01.2012, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011 in Sessions Case No.225 of 2008.
The petitioners are A1 to A3 in Sessions Case No.225 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioners/accused. The petitioners herein along with other accused filed Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 to 5, PW.7, PW.10, PW.14, PW.15 and PW.17 to confront them as to the improvements made before the Court over their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated in the petition filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court that improvements are not put to the witnesses due to inadvertence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition being Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011, by order, dated 09.01.2012. Relevant portion of the said order, needs to be noted and it is thus:
In the present petition or the memo mentioned questions there is no reference to any such material questions with regard to omissions or contradictions which would fit in the ratio laid down by the Apex Court stated herein above. Further every exaggerated statement made by the witness can be a ground to recall the witness, branching such exaggeration as either contradiction or omission.
17) Therefore, the petitioners failed to establish that by the reexamination new evidence may appear and it is essential to arrive just decision in that case. In these circumstances, it appears the defence now wants to divert the prosecution case in a different direction and the attempt of the defence to recall 10 prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination even after allowing the recall of PW.1 and PW.14 is nothing but to prolong the trial and if the defence prayer is allowed after such detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it may be lead to undesirable results.
Hence, this Criminal Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners with the prayer stated supra.
Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing trial in a double murder case and if the improvements made by the witnesses before the trial Court are not put to the witnesses, great prejudice is likely to be caused to the defence of the accused. A further submission has been made that the witnesses could not be confronted with their improvements in the evidence before the trial Court over their 161 Cr.P.C. statements due to inadvertence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused.
I have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners before the trial Court. The witnesses are sought to be recalled for the purpose of confronting them with the improvements made in their evidence over their 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the Police. It is a matter of record that the petitioners earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2011 to recall PW.1 and PW.14 and the said application came to be allowed on 16.08.2011. It appears that the petitioners have not cross-examined PW.1 and PW.14 pursuant to the order, dated 16.08.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2011. Without availing the benefit of the said order, the petitioners once again moved Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011 to recall about 10 witnesses viz., PWs.1 to 5, PW.7, PW.10, PW.14, PW.15 and PW.17. The reason for recall, in my considered view, is not justified. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011. I do not see any flaw in the order, dated 09.01.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1916 of 2011, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners can avail the benefit of the order, dated 16.08.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2011.