THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1342 OF 2011 DATE: 15-07-2011 Between: Nenavath Raju …..Petitioner And The State, through C.I. of Police, Wanaparthy P.S., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1342 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This matter is coming up for admission. However after hearing both sides, the matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.516 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) at Mahabubnagar (trial Court). He has been charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. The plea of accused is one of total denial and the trial went on. 3. The petitioner filed a petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2011 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recall of P.Ws.3 and 14 for further cross-examination. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 16-4-2011 permitted recall of P.W.14, but refused the relief in respect of P.W.3. Questioning that order this revision is filed by the accused. 4. The plea of the accused is that his counsel before the trial Court inadvertently failed to cross-examine P.W.3 who is stated to be a relative of the deceased with regard to his presence when the deceased was taken to hospital for treatment. The learned Additional District Judge did not discuss this aspect in the impugned order, but mentioned that P.W.3 was cross-examined with regard to tutoring of the deceased and also his defence that the deceased did not give any statement and that she was not in a position to speak at all. So far as these aspects are concerned, the accused counsel might have cross-examined P.W.3 about the same, but the impugned order does not show that the counsel for the accused cross-examined the witness even with regard to disputing his presence at the scene of offence or while taking the deceased to the hospital or that the deceased gave any statement at the time when she was being taken to the hospital. The impugned order is silent on this aspect. In any event it may be noted that as the accused is facing trial for a serious charge i.e. murder, I am of the opinion that the accused can be given an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.3 on the above aspects only and this will not in any way prejudice the prosecution case. 5. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is allowed subject to the condition of the accused bearing the expenses of the witness i.e. P.W.3 when he attends the Court for further cross- examination. 6. The Court below shall fix an early date of hearing for further cross-examining P.W.3 and on the said date, the learned counsel for the accused shall proceed to further cross-examine him. The petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in the concerned Sessions Court to defray the expenses of the witness. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed at the admission stage. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 15th July, 2011. TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1342 OF 2011 Date: 15-7-2011