IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9745 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR.S S/O SRINIVAS MURTHY. S 33 YEARS HOUSE NO.65, 2ND MAIN 6TH CROSS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR MYSURU-570 023 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN S.C.NO.107/2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN ANNEXURE-F.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Shri Veeranna G.Tigadi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 417, 504 and 506 of IPC. The prosecution evidence was complete. At that stage, petitioner-accused has filed an application on 03.12.2018 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination. Learned Trial Judge has rejected the said application by the impugned order.
3. Adverting to a statement recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C., Shri Tigadi submitted that victim has stated in her statement that she was married to the petitioner. Further, petitioner has been able to collect some materials to establish that she had relation with other persons which goes to the root of the mater. In the circumstances, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
may be allowed and petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine the said witnesses.
4. Learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that witnesses were cross-examined on 13.9.2017 and again recalled on 26.09.2018. Thus, the instant application is filed only to harass them.
5. A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Trial Judge has rejected the application on the ground that no special grounds or reasons are urged in the instant application to recall witnesses.
6. It is the case of Shri Tigadi that petitioner has averred in paragraph No.5 of the application that complainant was not properly cross-examined by the earlier advocate. The impugned order also indicates that witnesses were cross-examined on 13.09.2017 and 26.09.2018. However, it is relevant to note that victim in her statement recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C., has stated that she was married to the petitioner. It is trite that application under section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be considered liberally. Hence, one more opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.1 & 2 by imposing cost.
7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine P.Ws.1 & 2 on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cross-examination shall be completed in one day and the date shall be fixed by the learned Sessions Judge subject to his convenience.
This petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.