Allowed

K.Durgadas, S/o.Late K.K.Kumaran v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014CRLRC/1658/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the petitioner A-2 permission to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, who had been previously examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for both material contradictions and scenes of offence, due to the petitioner's prior incarceration preventing effective instruction to counsel.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to cross-examine witnesses PWs 1 to 8, 15 and 41 regarding material contradictions and two scenes of offence only.

K.Durgadas, S/o.Late K.K.Kumaran Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1658 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is A-2. He challenges the order of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos. 82 & 89 of 2013 in S.C.No. 63 of 2009, seeking permission to recall PWs 1 to 8, 15 and 41 for further cross-examination. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitions in part holding that PWs 1 to 8, 15 and 41 be recalled on payment of batta of Rs. 200/- for each of the witnesses for the limited purpose of cross-examination regarding material contradictions in their evidence. Specific orders were passed that the petitioners were not entitled to cross-examine the recalled witnesses for any other purpose. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is filed by A-2, who is one of the petitioners in the common order before the trial Court.

¶5

The learned counsel for A-2 contended that the petitioner was in jail for a considerable time during which period she could not effectively instruct her counsel to cross-examine the witnesses and that the petitioner therefore, seeks permission of the Court to recall PWs 1 to 8, 15 and 41 for further cross-examination.

¶6

As already noticed, the learned trial Judge himself directed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on the question of material contradictions. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the newly impleaded second respondent, the petitioners cannot resort to fishing expedition trying to extract evidence from the witnesses. The witnesses were cross-examined already and the

¶7

evidence had concluded. In fact, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also over more than six months ago. The learned counsel for the second respondent further contended that the incident occurred in admittedly faction ridden area resulting in the death of as many as 11 persons and submitted that there is danger to the life of the witnesses in the hands of the accused as the accused are already on bail. He submitted that blanket recall of all witnesses might not be considered and further opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses might endanger the life of the witnesses.

¶8

The petitioner cannot protract the litigation by resorting to further cross-examination of the witnesses on the aspects on which the witnesses had already been cross examined.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the issue of material contradictions, the petitioner intends to cross-examine the witnesses regarding the two scenes of offence involved in this case. His contention is that the cross-examination of the witnesses on these points could not be done earlier as the petitioner had been in incarceration at that time.

¶10

In view of the fact that the petitioner had been in jail earlier, I consider that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that effective instructions could not be issued by the petitioner to her advocate is justified. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses not only regarding the material contradictions but also in respect of the scenes of offence. Again it should be clarified that the petitioner cannot cross-examine the witnesses on any aspect other than the material contradictions and scenes of offence.

¶11

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order of the trial Court is maintained with an addition that the petitioner is entitled to cross examine PWs 1 to 8, 15 and 41 not only on material contradictions but also regarding the scenes of offence and on no other aspects. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶12

submitted that the cross-examination may be completed on one day and that as the case stood posted to 6.3.2014, the petitioner would be able to cross-examine the witnesses on that day.

¶13

As A-2, 13 and 16 had already been permitted to crossexamine the witnesses, in the event the witnesses are summoned to court on 6.3.2014 or any other day to the convenience of the trial Court, the petitioner shall cross examine the witnesses on the above mentioned aspects viz., regarding the material contradictions and the two scenes of offence and no other aspects.

¶14

The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that A2 had not been in jail by the time the case went for trial. At any rate, I consider it appropriate to accord another opportunity to the petitioner/A2 to cross-examine these witnesses on the points already referred to above.

¶15

DR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶16

DATE: 25.02.2014

¶17

K.Durgadas, S/o.Late K.K.Kumaran v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Durgadas, S/o.Late K.K.Kumaran v. The State of Telangana

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

Chowhan Lokya Naik, S/o. Parushoma Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Afsar Patel Vs the State of Telengana

Sonthu Mallikarjun, Vs State of Telangana

M. Devendra Vs The State of A.P.

S. Mahammad Basha , Karam Mahammad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ediga Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh