The single-judge High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order rejecting the accused's application to examine an omitted prosecution witness as a defence witness and to summon her.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to cross-examine L.W.4; consequential petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRL.OP No. 5253 of 2022
1 Veeraragavan
...Petitioners
Vs.
1 The Inspector of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District, Crime No. 214 of 2019.
...Respondents
PRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the CMP No. 1711/2021 and CMP No. 1823/2021, in S.S.C No. 123/2019
dated 01.12.2021 order passed by the Special Sessions Judge(POCSO) at Cuddalore and direct to issue summons to examine the said L.W.4 Pushpa as
defence side witness.
For petitioner : Mr.A.Kanaka Velappan For R1 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
2
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner herein filed this petition to quash the CMP No. 1711/2021 and CMP No. 1823/2021, in S.S.C No. 123/2019 dated 01.12.2021 order passed by the Special Sessions Judge(POCSO) at Cuddalore and direct to issue summons to examine the said L.W.4 Pushpa as defence side witness.
3 . On perusal of the records, it reveals that during the pendency of the proceedings, the prosecution filed the application CMP No. 1823 of 2021 before the Trial Court to examine L.W.4/Pushpa as prosecution witness. On the other side, the accused filed another application in CMP No. 1711 of 2021 to examine L.W.4/Pushpa as defence witness. On hearing both sides, the trial court found that already prosecution side listed the L.W.4 as witness but omitted to examine. Hence, permitted the prosecution to examined L.W.4 as witness by allowing the application filed by the prosecution and dismissed the application filed by the accused/defence side.
as prosecution witness but they omitted to examine her. On such circumstances, the accused has no right to treat the said witness as defence
3
witness and the same was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court which
needs no interference. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to cross examine the L.W.4.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequentially connected miscellaneous petition(s) closed.
01.02.2024
pbl
To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pbl
CRL.OP No. 5253 of 2022
5
01.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of an accused's application to examine an omission-to-examine witness as defence witness.
Whether the liberty to cross-examine a prosecution witness omitted to be examined by the prosecution is granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Veeraragavan
Inspector of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station, Cuddalore
T.V. Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
