Dismissed¶¶38

Suhail @ Abdul Rahiman Suhail v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025CRL.P/14613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; CRL.P No. 14613 of 2025; Section 482 Cr.P.C. with Section 528 BNSS; refusal to recall/recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. upheld; SC.No.28/2022, Ullal Police Station; charges under Sections 302, 120B, 107, 109, 326 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 24 Arms Act; PW2 and PW3 eye-witnesses cross-examined, chief examination 17.11.2020; Section 311 application at fag end before Section 313 stage; no error in rejection; petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

PW2 and PW3 had already been extensively cross-examined by the defence; their chief examination was conducted on 17.11.2020 and they were thereafter cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2. ¶¶32

Suhail @ Abdul Rahiman Suhail Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (referred to in the body as accused Nos. 1 and 2) should be permitted under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to cross-examine PW2 and PW3 — described as eye-witnesses — further/afresh, notwithstanding that they had already been cross-examined and the trial had reached the pre-Section 313 stage.

¶¶32

Court's answer

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was made at the fag end of the trial, when the case was posted for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Having perused the material on record, the Court was of the firm view that sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses, and the witnesses were in fact cross-examined; there was no error in dismissing the Section 311 application and no merit in the petition.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of Mohammad Nawaz, J., High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, dated 25.11.2025, in Criminal Petition No. 14613 of 2025 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (read with Section 528 BNSS). The petition challenged the order dated 01.07.2025 of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore, rejecting, in SC.No.28/2022 of Ullal P.S. (offences under Sections 120(B), 107, 109, 326, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 24 of the Arms Act), the accused's application dated 25.06.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW16 for further cross-examination — the prayer before this Court being confined to eye-witnesses PW2 and PW3. Held: PW2 and PW3 (chief examination 17.11.2020) had already been extensively cross-examined by the defence on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the Section 311 application came at the fag end when the case was posted for recording the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; sufficient opportunity having been given, there was no error in dismissing the application and no merit in the petition. Petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48797 CRL.P No. 14613 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14613 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SUHAIL @ ABDUL RAHIMAN SUHAIL S/O HUSAIN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO. 17-63-14 JAMALIYA ROAD MUKKACHERRI, ULLAL MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-575 020

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLAL POLICE STATION D.K. DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

ASIF S/O. ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 16/17/4, MUKKACHERRY HYDERALI ROAD, ULLAL D.K. DISTRICT-575 020

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:48797 CRL.P No. 14613 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 01.07.2025 ON A APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C IN SC.NO.28/2022 OF ULLAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B),107,109,326,302 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 4 AND 24 OF THE ARMS ACT, ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of the

¶27

application filed by them under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the learned Session Judge, has preferred this petition.

¶28

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively wherein, the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 107, 109, 326, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 4 and 24 of the Arms Act.

¶29

The charge sheet was filed in the year 2017. After committal of the case and framing of charges, the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48797 CRL.P No. 14613 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

trial has commenced. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is filed on 25.06.2024 to recall PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW16 for the purpose of further crossexamination. The learned Session Judge vide impugned order has rejected the said application after assigning reasons. Even though the learned counsel for petitioner would restrict his prayer to permit the petitioners to crossexamine only PW2 and PW3 on the ground that they are the eye witnesses and their cross-examination is very much necessary, this Court finds from their deposition that they have been extensively cross examined by the defence. It is relevant to see that the chief examination of PW2 and PW3 was conducted on 17.11.2020 and they were cross examined on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is at the fag end, when the case was posted for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶33

This Court having perused the material on record, is of the firm view that sufficient opportunity was

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:48797 CRL.P No. 14613 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

given to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses and in fact the witnesses were cross-examined. There is no error in dismissing the application. There is no merit in

¶38

the case. Petition is dismissed .

¶39

I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Suhail @ Abdul Rahiman Suhail v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhail @ Abdul Rahiman Suhail v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dalapath Singh Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Squad Police

Sri Vasudeva Marakala Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nawaz @ Nawaz Sharif Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Srilatha Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar Rao N Vs State of Karnataka

Nuthan A.R Vs the State Represented