CRR No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Ram Parsad ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Ram Parsad, preferred this revision petition to challenge the order dated 23.4.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in case FIR No. 375 dated 9.10.2007, registered under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Pehowa. By the said order, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner-accused was rejected. FIR No. 375 dated 9.10.2007, was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that accused party armed with dandas, iron rods, swords etc. had caused injuries to Suresh Kumar (deceased). After framing of charge, PW-1 Arjun Singh and other witnesses appeared in Court. Application under 311 Cr.P.C. was moved to recall Arjun Singh for further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Arjun Singh, CRR No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -2- appeared as PW-1. Eye-witnesses namely, Devraj, Vivek Bahal and Kewal Krishan, have failed to support the prosecution story. Arjun Singh, has filed an affidavit dated 28.3.2011, to the effect that he had not witnessed the occurrence. Requested that Arjun Singh, be recalled to cross-examine qua affidavit dated 28.3.2011. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 1984 (1)RCR (Criminal) 95, “Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Haryana”. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force. FIR No. 375 dated 9.10.2007, was registered against Ram Parsad- petitioner and one Ashwani Kumar @ Vicky. Allegation of the prosecution was that Ram Parsad and Ashwani Kumar @ Vicky, had caused injuries to Suresh Kumar (deceased). Arjun Singh, appeared as PW-1 on 17.9.2008 and his cross-examination was deferred. Cross- examination was completed on 28.5.2010. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved to recall Arjun Singh. Second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon PW-15 Devraj, PW-16 Vivek Bahal and PW-17 Kewal Krishan. Both the applications were allowed. A perusal of file shows that first time Arjun Singh, appeared as witness on 17.9.2008. Again Arjun Singh, was recalled for further cross-examination. Cross-examination was completed on 28.5.2010, and this fact is clear from the copy of the statement (Annexure P-2). While appearing as prosecution witness Arjun Singh, has fully supported the prosecution story. Eye-witnesses namely Devraj, Vivek Bahal and Kewal Krishan, appeared in Court but did not support the CRR No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -3- prosecution story. Allegation of the prosecution was that the above said witnesses were won over by the accused party. Now, allegation of the petitioner is that Arjun Singh, gave an affidavit dated 28.3.2011 and he be re-summoned for further cross-examination qua affidavit dated 28.3.2011. Copy of the affidavit (Annexure P-6) is on the file and as per affidavit Arjun Singh, wants to resile from his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statement in Court by saying that he had not witnessed the occurrence. Affidavit further shows that when he appeared in Court at that time he was under the pressure of police. If Arjun Singh, when appeared in Court was under the pressure of police and if he again re-summoned for further cross-examination qua his affidavit dated 28.3.2011 then question is whether now, he is not under the pressure of police. In Jagdish Chander's case (supra) Court has discretion to examine or recall a witness if his evidence is essential for just decision of case and recalling does not demolish the defence set up by the accused. As discussed earlier three witnesses namely, Devraj, Vivek Bahal and Kewal Krishan, while appearing in Court did not support the prosecution story. Arjun Singh, while appearing in Court, had fully supported the prosecution story. Now, the petitioner-accused wants to recall Arjun Singh, to give statement in his favour by pressurizing him to give an affidavit dated 28.3.2011. If Arjun Singh, is re-summoned for further cross-examination then as per affidavit he is to resile from his statement that he has not witnessed the occurrence or the petitioner along with his co-accused Ashwani Kumar @ Vicky, had not caused CRR No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -4- injuries to Suresh Kumar (deceased). In case, Arjun Singh, has given affidavit dated 28.3.2011, then in defence affidavit could easily be got proved and exhibited by examining the Oath Commissioner/Notary or the person who had identified the deponent. In case document is exhibited then the Court is to see, as to what is the evidentiary value of the document. No provision that the Court is to re-summon or recall the witness who already appeared in Court and fully supported the prosecution story and now to state that earlier when he appeared in Court, at that time he was under pressure and now he is not under pressure and the crime was not committed by the accused party in his presence. Common experience shows that eye-witnesses appear in Courts and support the prosecution story. If under pressure of the accused party or politicians/bureaucrats or anti-social elements supporting the accused, eye-witnesses are forced to give affidavits then Court should not be a part to re-summon or re-call the witness to state that earlier statement is not correct one and the crime was not committed by the accused in his presence. In view of all discussed above, instant revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 9, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE