Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the prosecution witnesses who were not cross-examined at the earlier stage could be recalled for cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether refusal of such recall would deny a fair trial.
Analysis: The accused had not cross-examined the complainant and shadow witness when they were examined, but the record and counsel's affidavit indicated that the omission was due to an intended deferral until the trap laying officer was examined. The witnesses were material and incriminating, and their testimony had remained unchallenged. Section 311 confers wide powers on the Court to recall witnesses where it is essential to the just decision of the case and to prevent failure of justice caused by mistake or inadvertence. Although delay may prejudice the prosecution, fairness of trial and the opportunity to test credibility through cross-examination had to receive greater weight.
Conclusion: The recall of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination was warranted, and refusal to grant that opportunity was not justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised liberally where recall of a material witness is necessary to prevent failure of justice and to secure a fair opportunity for cross-examination.