moved. The copies of the affidavits Annexures P11 and P12, have been placed, on the record. In both these affidavits, these witnesses, allegedly took a contradictory stand to the one taken by them in their statements, earlier made by them, in the Court, on oath, wherein, the name of the petitioner, as one of the assailants was mentioned. It appears that, after both these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, qua the petitioner, the aforesaid affidavits, were allegedly procured, by him (petitioner), from them, so as to absolve himself of the criminal liability. In Rachapalli Abbulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002(2), RCR (Crl.), 414 (S.C.) , it was held, that the practice, adopted by the defence side, in obtaining the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses, deserves to be deprecated. That, in a way, amounts to an attempt, aimed at dissuading the witnesses, from speaking the truth, or resiling from their statements, earlier made in the Court. Recall of these witnesses, for confronting them with the affidavits, referred to above, would have amounted to travesty of justice, instead of advancing the cause thereof. The recall of the witnesses, for confronting them with the aforesaid affidavits, which came into existence, later in date, and, which, as stated above, were allegedly procured by the accused, to achieve the oblique motive, could not be said to be the purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the trial Court, was right, in dismissing the application.
