Full Text
Translation output
48# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP with SI Ravinder Joshi, PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP with SI Ravinder Joshi, PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
21.07.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 8177/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.
M.A. No. 8178/2011 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of eight days in refiling the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of Crl. M.C. 2249/2011
By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order dated 2"^ May, 2011 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing their application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling witnesses, PWl Rakesh Kumar and PW2
Smt. Prakasho.
21.07.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 8177/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.
M.A. No. 8178/2011 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of eight days in refiling the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of Crl. M.C. 2249/2011
By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order dated 2"^ May, 2011 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing their application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling witnesses, PWl Rakesh Kumar and PW2
Smt. Prakasho.
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:10581 Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the deceased made a dying declaration to the SDM wherein she had not levelled any allegations about dowry demand against the Petitioners and even in her history given to the doctor recorded in the MLC it is stated that she suffered bums while pouring kerosene oil and it was accidental in nature. According to the
Petitioners even PWl and PW2 did not state to the SDM any allegations about demand of dowry, however, in the witness box they have introduced the allegations. He thus wants to recall and confront them with the statements made by them before the SDM.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners at length. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court took into consideration all the facts stated above. It observed that as per the record, PWl Rakesh Kumar was examined on 2"'' June, 2010 by the earlier counsel
Sh. Khushbir Singh and the cross-examination ofPWl runs into seven whereas cross-examination of PW2 runs into six pages. Since now a new counsel has been engaged, he points out that the earlier counsel has committed various errors in the cross-examination. The accused persons were granted full opportunity for cross-examination of the two witnesses which was availed by their counsel. The learned Trial Court found no
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011 i ground to recall PWl and PW2.
Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if the recalling of the witness is required for its just decision the court is mandated to recall the witness. However, a perusal of the statements of the two witnesses shows that the counsel for the
Petitioners had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In fact
PW2 in her cross examination has clearly stated that she had gone to the
SDM who had recorded her statement as per the facts stated by her. The statement was recorded by some staff member of the SDM on his dictation.
She denied giving any statement earlier to this either to police or SHO or
SDM.
In view of the fact that the statements have already been recorded and sufficient opportunity has been availed by the counsel to cross-examine them, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order ofthe learned Trial
Court.
Petition is dismissed.
'vn' MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 21, 2011
2011:DHC:10581 Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the deceased made a dying declaration to the SDM wherein she had not levelled any allegations about dowry demand against the Petitioners and even in her history given to the doctor recorded in the MLC it is stated that she suffered bums while pouring kerosene oil and it was accidental in nature. According to the
Petitioners even PWl and PW2 did not state to the SDM any allegations about demand of dowry, however, in the witness box they have introduced the allegations. He thus wants to recall and confront them with the statements made by them before the SDM.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners at length. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court took into consideration all the facts stated above. It observed that as per the record, PWl Rakesh Kumar was examined on 2"'' June, 2010 by the earlier counsel
Sh. Khushbir Singh and the cross-examination ofPWl runs into seven whereas cross-examination of PW2 runs into six pages. Since now a new counsel has been engaged, he points out that the earlier counsel has committed various errors in the cross-examination. The accused persons were granted full opportunity for cross-examination of the two witnesses which was availed by their counsel. The learned Trial Court found no
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011 i ground to recall PWl and PW2.
Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if the recalling of the witness is required for its just decision the court is mandated to recall the witness. However, a perusal of the statements of the two witnesses shows that the counsel for the
Petitioners had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In fact
PW2 in her cross examination has clearly stated that she had gone to the
SDM who had recorded her statement as per the facts stated by her. The statement was recorded by some staff member of the SDM on his dictation.
She denied giving any statement earlier to this either to police or SHO or
SDM.
In view of the fact that the statements have already been recorded and sufficient opportunity has been availed by the counsel to cross-examine them, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order ofthe learned Trial
Court.
Petition is dismissed.
'vn' MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 21, 2011
CRL.M.C. 2249/2011 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT