Orissa High Court: In an interlocutory application filed under Section of the (CrPC), seeking to recall the informant for additional cross-examination, the division Bench, consisting of Justice S.K. Sahoo and R.K. Pattanaik, JJ., allowed the prayer and directed the Trial Court to summon the informant and to limit the cross-examination to the questions listed in the submitted questionnaire.
Background
The informant was examined on 31-07-2017, before the Additional Sessions Judge and the trial resulted in all appellants being found guilty and sentenced to death. The Court had remanded the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to add charges under Sections and of the (IPC) and to proceed with the trial in accordance with Section of the .
On 14-11-2017, the informant was also examined as prosecution witness before the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board which stemmed from the same First Information Report (FIR). The testimony given by the informant in this case was in stark contrast to her testimony in the trial of the appellants.
After the case was remanded, it was retried in 2020 before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rayagada and the informant was recalled and re-examined. Although the defence counsel was allowed to cross-examine the informant, they were unable to confront her with the contradictions between her testimony in the two cases.
The order of death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation under the provision of Section of the and the appellants also filed a criminal appeal assailing the judgment and order.
Analysis and Order
The Court stated that the key issue to consider was whether the request to recall the informant for further questioning should be denied simply because the defence counsel did not address certain contradictions during the initial cross-examination.
The Court referred to Purna Chandra Samal v. State of Orissa , wherein it was laid down that Appellate Courts should record additional evidence if it is necessary for a just decision or to prevent failure of justice, provided it does not prejudice the defence or fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.
The Court noted that in Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra, , it was observed that “no set of principles can be set forth for such an exercise of power under Section 391, since the same is dependent upon the fact situation of the matter and having due regard to the concept of fair play and justice, well-being of the society. The additional evidence should not be admitted in a way that prejudices the accused.
The Court viewed that in the interest of justice and to arrive at the just conclusion of the case, if additional evidence is required to be taken which would not cause prejudice to any of the parties, the Appellate Court can take such evidence or cause such evidence to be recorded by the Trial Court.
The Court observed that criminal justice is not one-sided and has many facets and the Court has to draw a balance between conflicting rights and duties. The victim of offence or the accused should not suffer for laches or omission of Public Prosecutor or the defence counsel respectively and even of the Court. Further, the Court added that right to speedy trial in criminal case which includes disposal of criminal appeal preferred by the accused against conviction is a valuable and important right of the accused, but for the sake of speedy trial, there should not be denial of justice or grave miscarriage of justice.
In the matter at hand, the Court said that when the appellants have been sentenced to death, even though the defence counsel had failed to cross-examine the informant on 02-03-2020 with reference to the previous statement made by her before the Juvenile Board, after going through the questionnaire, the appellants through their counsel can be permitted to put the questions as mentioned in the questionnaire to the informant in the cross-examination. Regarding the evidentiary value of the same, the Court added that it will be decided during hearing of the criminal appeal and the application for confirmation of sentence.
The Court clarified that only the questions in the questionnaire are to be put before the informant and no other questions shall be permitted to be put in the cross-examination.
[State of Odisha v. DengunSabar, CRLA No.750 of 2021, Order Dated: 03-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel of Petitioner: Advocate Manas Chand
Counsel of Respondents: Addl. Govt. Advocate Arupananda Das
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .