CRM No. M-24051 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-24051 of 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 04.10.2011 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present Mr. Yashpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. Mr. A. K. Khungger, Advocate, for respondent No.2. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by Shri Puneesh Jindia, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which the application filed by accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning Balwan Singh PW-1, so as to confront him with the testimony of PW-4, 5 and 6 i.e relatives of the deceased, was dismissed. The accused-revisionist filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling PW-1 Balwan Singh for further cross-examination. It is pleaded that PW-1 Balwan Singh in his CRM No. M-24051 of 2011 (O&M) -2- examination-in-chief has stated that he is resident of village Deeg, District Kaithal and has mentioned about certain facts and circumstances of the family of deceased and her parents. The parents of the deceased Kamlesh were examined as PW-4, 5 and 6 and all of them were conversant with the facts of the case. They have denied about the demand of dowry and harassment. These Pws have further stated that Kamlesh died due to burn injuries on account of burst of stove. Balwan Singh is not the resident of village Deeg. He is residing in Basant Vihar, Karnal and they have never discussed the matter with said Balwan Singh. So, prayer has been made for further cross-examination of Balwan Singh PW-1. The said application was opposed by the prosecution. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 13.07.2011, dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order dated 13.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, the present revision petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in order to confront the testimony of PW-4 to 6 as detailed above, further examination of PW-1 Balwan Singh is necessary. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following authorities : 1. “Ramoo Bhadauriya & anr. vs. State of U.P” 2010 (6) All. LJ 662; CRM No. M-24051 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 2. “Chhotey Badri Prasad vs. State of U.P and anr.”, 2006 Crl.LJ 711; 3. “Billar Badri Prasad vs. State of U.P and anr.” 2006 Crl.LJ 1415. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case carefully. In this case, statement of Balwan Singh was recorded on 23.10.2010 and he has supported the case of prosecution, whereas statement of PW-4 to PW-6, as detailed above, was recorded on 11.03.2011 and they have not supported the case of prosecution. The accused/petitioner wanted to recall Balwant Singh for further cross-examination. No doubt the power given to the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C is wide enough but that power should be exercised to meet the ends of justice. The sole purpose for summoning Balwan Singh for further cross- examination seems to extract favourable statement as the other main witnesses PW-4 to PW-6 have not supported the case of prosecution. Both set of witnesses have no co-relation with each other. So far as authorities Ramoo Bhadauriya's case, Chhotey Badri Prasad and Billar Badri Prasad's case (supra) are concerned, the Allahabad High Court has allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C in the circumstances of that case. The delay in filing the application was not only the ground CRM No. M-24051 of 2011 (O&M) -4- for rejecting the application for further cross-examination of Balwan Singh, a party cannot be allowed to thwart the process of justice by further cross-examination of witness. However, it is made clear that the trial Court has to assess the testimony of PW-1 Balwant Singh and PW-4 to PW-6 independently. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. OCTOBER 04, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE