IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1606 of 2008() ------------------------------ SC.299/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- BIJU, S/O.PATHROSE, CHELAKKUDI HOUSE, IRUMBUPALAM BHAGAM, VAALARA KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: IST RESPONDENT & PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THANKACHAN, S/O.SHAMUEL, PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1606 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25 th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 1st accused in S.C.No.299 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III (Ad hoc II), Thodupuzha, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, challenges the order dated 9.4.08 passed by the trial court permitting the petitioner's witness examined as DW1 to clarify his deposition which according to him was made inadvertently and without having full knowledge of the true facts. The trial court allowed the said application. The said order is challenged on the ground that it amounts to filling up the lacuna in the evidence and also to help the witness to resile from his own statement. Allowing a witness to give further deposition before the court by way of clarification cannot amount to filling up of lacuna in the evidence. If the further examination of DW1 is to make a false statement, the petitioner can very well cross-examine DW1 and confront him with his own previous statement. There may be good or bad reasons for a witness to Crl.R.P.No.1606 of 2008 2 deviate from his own statement. By giving him an opportunity to give further evidence, it does not have the effect of effacing the evidence already tendered by him. In the final analysis the reliability of the witness, is a matter to be considered by the trial court. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below. This Crl.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 25 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj