Allowed

Rachappa @ Raju v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 May 2023CRL.P/3485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition to set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witness PW-1 for cross-examination, holding it a valuable right under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of 19.12.2022; directed the trial court to permit the accused to cross-examine PW-1.

Rachappa @ Raju Vs State by Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 3485 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3485 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RACHAPPA @ RAJU, S/O RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A DUDDAGERE VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK - 570 010.

¶8

PERMANENT ADDRESS, BAIRANATHA VILLAGE, HANURU TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 439.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY KARNATAKA , BY VARUNA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. H S SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.397 R/W CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2022 IN

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 3485 of 2023

¶19

SPL.C.NO.442/2022 ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-I) AT MYSURU ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW-1.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶23

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 19.12.2022 in Spl.C.No.442/2022 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1) at Mysuru.

¶24

The accused / petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 and permit the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness. The trial Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner, wherein paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said order read as under:

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 3485 of 2023

¶27

"The accused person in this case has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(n), 506 IPC and Sec.5(j)(ii)(l)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and the victim girl in this case is examined as PW.1 on 15.11.2022. On the said date the counsel for accused was present and had prayed time for cross-examination of the victim. The prayer was rejected.

¶28

As per Sec. 311 Cr.P.C, the court may at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case".

¶29

The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is a

¶30

valuable right of the accused. However, the trial Court has rejected the prayer of learned counsel for the accused.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

¶32

India, it is just and proper to allow the petition.

¶33

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 3485 of 2023

¶38

Impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Spl.C.No.442/2022 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1, Mysuru, is set aside.

¶39

The trial Court is directed to permit learned counsel for the accused to cross-examine PW.1.

¶40

It is made clear that accused shall not take any unnecessary adjournments. After providing opportunity to the accused, the trial Court shall dispose of the case, in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MKM CT: BHK

Rachappa @ Raju v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachappa @ Raju v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddesha @ Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Akash S L Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Salam Vs State by Rt Nagar Ps

Mr.Yateesh Kumar @ Yathee Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Mohammed Shaheera Vs State of Karnataka