Kerala High Court: In a petition filed by actor Sunil N.S. for setting aside the impugned order wherein the Trial Court rejected his application seeking the recall of two witnesses who were examined in 2021, the Single Judge Bench of C. Jayachandran, J. delved into the provision of recalling witnesses under Sections and as well as the findings of the Trial Court and concurred with the Trial Court. Holding this, the Court rejected the petition stating that the application for recall is frivolous.
Background
The petition pertains to the case where an actress was allegedly abducted and sexually assaulted by the accused persons including Sunil, in a moving car. Thereafter, the accused were proceeded against under Sections , , , , , , , , , , read with Section of the (‘IPC’), and Sections and of the .
After the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was posted for defence evidence, on 30-11-2024, Sunil’s counsel filed an application under Section of the (‘CrPC’) for the recall of two prosecution witnesses (‘PWs’) who had been examined in 2021. Both of them were expert witnesses, one being a doctor, who collected samples for forensic examination and the other being the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory.
This application was rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order; hence, the present petition was filed.
Analysis
Regarding the contention that Section confers a right of the accused to recall and re-examine witnesses who have already been examined, the Court stated that the purpose of Section 233 is not to enable the accused to recall a PW, already examined. Instead, it is Section 231(2), which speaks of the prosecution evidence that contemplates recalling any witness for further cross-examination. Along with this, Section 311 contemplates recalling and re-examining any person already examined at any stage of the inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under CrPC.
The Court held that since these are the statutory provisions, it is too far-fetched to contemplate that Section 233 would take within its sweep a power to recall a PW already examined. Instead, it confers the accused a right to enter on his defence and to adduce evidence in support thereof. The Court further clarified that the Section obviously refers to Defence Witnesses; and not PWs already examined. Therefore, the Court rejected this argument and held that it was contrary to the object and purpose of Section 233. However, the Court held that this does not mean that during the stage of Section 233, a PW cannot be recalled at all, but just that the Section does not envisage and enable the same.
Regarding the contention that the defence gets the opportunity to recall witnesses only on the stage under Section 233, the Court stated that when the power under Section 311 can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, a witness, already examined, can be recalled and re-examined during the stage of Section 233 as well, but not by invoking Section 233; instead, on the strength of Section 311. Therefore, the Court rejected this argument as fallacious.
Thus, the Court held that a PW, already examined, cannot be recalled by exercising the powers under Section . However, such an exercise can be done under Section at any stage, including that of Section 233, provided all the requirements and parameters of Section 311 are otherwise satisfied. The Court also added that under Section 311, a discretionary power vests with the Court, which can be exercised when the evidence sought to be adduced is essential for a just decision of the case.
After perusing the aspects which the Trial Court considered for rejecting Sunil’s application, the Court endorsed the following findings of the Trial Court:
Sunil and his counsel participated in the trial throughout.
Sunil’s counsel did not make any complaint, at any point in time, that they could not cross-examine the witnesses due to lack of instructions until the application under Section 311 was filed, that too, three and a half years after their examination.
Both witnesses sought to be recalled are expert witnesses, wherefore, Sunil’s presence or otherwise in the Court would be of little assistance in cross-examination.
From 23-02-2023 when Sunil was continuously present before the Court, he had ample opportunity to consult his lawyer.
Thus, the contention was completely bereft of any bonafides and the application was nothing but dilatory tactics.
Thus, the Court held that the present application appears to be a frivolous one, filed with an eye fixed on delaying the disposal of the case. Additionally, a person, who had enough opportunity to do a thing, which he did not avail, cannot turn around later and complain of want of opportunity. The Court also held that the requirements of Section are not satisfied since the new evidence sought to be adduced by recalling the witnesses is not essential for a just decision in the case.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Sunil N.S. v. State of Kerala, Criminal Misc. Case No. 10527 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocates V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup, Dev Nandan A., Ravi Krishnan, and Anju P.
For the respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor C.N. Prabhakaran
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .