Allowed

Surekha Devi H @ Rekha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023CRL.P/9442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing order dismissing Section 311 application to recall witness, as inadvertent counsel suggestion conflicted with appellant's self-defence admission during charge reading.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. quashed; application allowed; petitioner permitted to cross-examine PW.1.

Surekha Devi H @ Rekha Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38744 CRL.P No. 9442 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9442 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUREKHA DEVI H @ REKHA W/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT RAHAMAD NAGAR, KADURU TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKMANGLURU 577 548

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA H C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER JIGANI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANRAYAN.A., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2023 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. FILED BY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:38744 CRL.P No. 9442 of 2023

¶18

THE PETITIONER, IN S.C.NO.5020/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

P.W.1/defacto complainant was subjected to cross examination by petitioner/accused herein and in the said cross examination the counsel made a suggestion that P.W.1 himself had killed the victim to which the witness denied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1 stating by inadvertence, the learned counsel had made a suggestion that P.W.1 himself had killed the victim, since the accused in the charge has specifically stated that she had killed the victim herself when the victim tried to kill her with the knife. Therefore, to substantiate that the petitioner had no intention to kill the victim, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38744 CRL.P No. 9442 of 2023

¶25

When the charge was read to the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein had categorically admitted that she killed the victim with the knife as a self defence when the victim tried to kill her. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner had inadvertently suggested that P.W.1 himself tried to kill the victim, which runs contrary to the admission made by the petitioner herein. Therefore, if the petitioner is not allowed to further cross examine P.W.1, it would adversely affect the defence taken by her. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶28

ii. The impugned order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal in S.C.No.5020/2020 on the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C is hereby quashed and consequently the application stands allowed.

¶29

iii. Petitioner is permitted to further cross examine P.w.1 on the date on which he is summoned and if the petitioner does not choose to cross examine the said witnesses without any sufficient cause, the learned Sessions Judge to proceed in accordance with law.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

RKA

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Surekha Devi H @ Rekha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Devi H @ Rekha v. State of 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

Ravichandran Selvaraj Vs State of Karnataka by

Rathnappa Vs State of Karnataka

T Appannagowda Vs State of Karnataka

Jayakrishnegowda P K Vs State by Kikkeri Police Station

Sri. M Goutham Chand Vs State of Karnataka by

Varun Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka