IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 8774/2017 BETWEEN SRI. SHANKAR, S/O SRI. ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO 506, MIG 2, SURYANAGARA, CHANDAPURA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DIST. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADV. FOR SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.) AND STATE BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SITTING AT ANEKAL IN S.C.NO.5015/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 231(2) OF Cr.P.C.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge sitting at Anekal in SC No.5015/2016, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 231(2) of Cr.PC.
3. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it is noticed that the prosecution has examined as many as five (05) witnesses and out of them, four (04) witnesses viz., PWs. 1 to 4 have turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.5, who is none other than the father of the victim lady, by name Shruti was examined. At that time, when the accused’s counsel was called upon to examine the witness (PW.5), the accused made an application under Section 231(2) of Cr.PC. seeking permission to cross-examine this witness after examination-in-chief of CWs.1, 6, 7 & 14 on the ground that, all those witnesses are related witnesses and they speak on the same subject matter and facts. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that there is no need to provide such an opportunity and mainly the learned Sessions Judge has concentrated that, the cross-examination should not be deferred merely on asking by the advocate. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the factual aspects of the matter as to whether these witnesses would speak same factual aspects, so that, opportunity has to be given to cross-examine all the witnesses at once. On this point, it appears no attention was bestowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The provision under Section 231 of Cr.PC. in fact gives Judicial discretion to the court to pass appropriate orders for granting time to cross-examine some of the witnesses at once after their examination-in- chief. The main object of deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses is, if the witnesses speak about the same factual aspects of same set of facts, the accused has to disclose his defence and cross-examine the witnesses. If he cross-examines any one of the witnesses there may be improvements by the other witnesses. In order to avoid that, the court has discretion to defer the cross- examination of those witnesses to speak similarly on same set of facts. Therefore, on careful perusal of the statement of these witnesses, they are none other than the father, mother, sisters of deceased Shruthi, they speak about same set of facts in order to substantiate the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
4. In the above circumstances, it is a fit case, where the learned Sessions Judge would have given opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses at once, after their examination-in-chief. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 231(2) of Cr.PC. in SC No.5015/2016 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 231(2) of Cr.PC. is hereby allowed.
The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine CWs.1, 6, 7 and 14 after their examination-in-Chief.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*