Disposed¶7

Sukru Kalaka v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Aug 2024CRLMC/2304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall of witness; recall of P.W.6 after conclusion of prosecution evidence and recording of Section 313 statements; single question to recalled witness; relevance of question on statements before I.O. (161 Cr.P.C.), Magistrate (164 Cr.P.C.) and FIR Ext.-13 regarding accused taking beaten Jagabandhu to village cremation ground; bar on adjournment; CRLMC 2304/2024; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; disposed of with direction to trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Recall of P.W.6 by the trial Court on the date fixed for final argument, with a single same-day opportunity for the petitioners to pose the one question framed in their Section 311 application, subject to an absolute bar on seeking any adjournment. ¶7

Sukru Kalaka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly rejected the petitioners' application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.6, so as to permit the witness to be confronted with the single pre-framed question concerning his earlier statements before the I.O. (161 Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate (164 Cr.P.C.) and in the FIR (Ext.-13), even though prosecution evidence was concluded, Section 313 statements were recorded and defence evidence was closed.

¶3

Court's answer

The learned counsel for the petitioners showed that the question proposed to be put to P.W.6 was a relevant question, and the Judge found merit in that submission.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter was to be fixed for final argument that very day, the trial Court was directed to recall P.W.6 on the date fixed for final argument, affording the petitioners a single opportunity, on the same day, to pose only the one question framed in their Section 311 application.

¶5

Key takeaways

Under no circumstances would the petitioners be allowed to seek an adjournment, on any ground whatsoever, on the date to be fixed by the trial Court.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRLMC No.2304 of 2024 (order dated 29.08.2024, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra): Petitioners (accused persons) sought recall of prosecution witness P.W.6 through an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to confront him with a single question on whether PW-6 had stated before the I.O. (161 Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate (164 Cr.P.C.) or in the FIR (Ext.-13) that the accused were taking Jagabandhu, while being beaten, to the village cremation ground. The application was moved after prosecution evidence concluded, the Section 313 statements were recorded and defence evidence was closed, and the trial Court had rejected it. The High Court held there was merit in the petitioners' submission that the proposed question was relevant, disposed of the CRLMC by directing the trial Court to recall P.W.6 on the date fixed for final argument, confined the witness to that single question, and prohibited any adjournment by the petitioners on any ground.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.2304 of 2024

¶3

Sukru Kalaka & others

¶4

…. Petitioners Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr.S.K. Mishra ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

29.08.2024

1. The petitioners have moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. seeking recall of P.W.6 to confront with a singular question, which is paraphrased in the application which reads as under: “ Whether the PW-6 has stated before I.O (161 Cr.P.C.) or Magistrate (164 Cr.P.C.) and mention in the FIR (Ext. -13) of this case, by that time accused persons were taking Jagabandhu being beaten himself to the village cremation ground ?”

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

2. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution evidence has already been concluded in the present case. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. has already been recorded and the defence has closed its evidence. At this stage, the present application has been moved. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the same.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the evidence of P.W.6 to impress upon the fact that the question framed to be posed to the witness is, in fact, a relevant question.

¶18

4. There is merit on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, I am of the considered view that, when the matter is fixed for final argument on that day itself, P.W.6 may be recalled. His witness shall be put only one question, which is mentioned in the application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. moved by the petitioners.

¶19

5. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to recall P.W.6 on the date fixed for final argument. On the same day, the petitioners shall be afforded with single opportunity to pose the question as framed by them, which is mentioned in the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

6. It is made clear that, under no circumstances, the petitioners shall be allowed to seek adjournment

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

on any ground whatsoever on the date to be fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

7. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 02-Sep-2024 19:48:29

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Sukru Kalaka v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukru Kalaka v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujit Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Prabhanjan Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Manjulata Behera Vs Biswanath Behera

Nibedita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Gitanjali Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sai Prasad Tripathy Vs State of Odisha