Allowed

Kuna Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Mar 2023CRLMC/884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. petition, the High Court of Orissa allowed the recall of a prosecution witness (P.W.-1) for further cross-examination on specific questions regarding the victim's age, which were deemed relevant to the defense and a just decision of the case.

What did the court decide?

CRLMC petition allowed; impugned order rejected; directed to recall P.W.-1 for further cross-examination on two specific questions; accused to bear travel expenses.

Kuna Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 884 of 2023

Kuna Mallick

…. Petitioner

Mr. K.C. Dash, Adv.

-Versus -

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. S.K. Mishra, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER_ 21.03.2023

¶12

Order No.

¶13

02.

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

The petitioner is facing trial in G.R. Case No.1282 of 2015 in the Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.S.C.), Kendrapara. Out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined. Out of such witnesses, the mother of the informant has been examined as P.W.-1.

¶16

The petitioner filed a petition on 16.01.2023 in the Court below with prayer to recall P.W.-1 for further cross-examination on the ground that certain material questions had been inadvertently not put to her.

¶17

It is submitted that the questions proposed to be put to the witness on record are essential for just decision of the case and shall also have a bearing on the defence of the accused.

¶18

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer by submitting that P.W.-1 was cross-examined extensively and therefore, she should not be recalled.

¶19

This Court has perused the copy of the deposition of P.W.-1 as furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true

¶20

Page 1 of 1

¶21

that she has been extensively cross-examined. Perusal of the petition dated 16.01.2023 reveals that the petitioner desires to put two questions to P.W.-1 on recall. Both of the questions are relatable to the age of the victim. Since the defence has taken a plea regarding age of the victim, the questions proposed to be put can be treated as relevant for the purpose of deciding the case. Even though the cross-examination of P.W.-1 has touched the question of age of the victim yet the questions proposed to be put are such as would help the Court in arriving at a just decision in the case depending on the answer given by the witness. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted one opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

¶22

The CRLMC is allowed. The impugned order in so far it relates to rejecting the petition for recall is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to pass necessary orders to recall P.W.-1 for further cross-examination. It is made clear that crossexamination shall be limited to putting the two questions indicated in the petition only. Further, the accused shall bear the travelling expenses of P.W.-1 for attending the Court. No adjournment shall be granted on the prayer of the accused under any circumstances if the witness is in attendance.

¶23

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶24

A.K. Rana

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Kuna Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuna Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartika Bhukta Vs State of Orissa

Sarat Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Panda Vs State and Ors.

Dalendra Ku.Bhuyan Vs State and Ors.

Upendra Acharya Vs Kishore Ch.Acharya

Sidhanta Sahu Vs State of Odisha