IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revn. No. 1909 of 2006 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 19.09.2006 Ramesh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * Petitioner Ramesh, one of the eleven accused, facing trial in cross case under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307, 506 read with Section 149 IPC in case FIR No. 356 dated 15.8.2003 registered at Police Station Assandh, has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 1.9.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') for re-calling the four prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a case FIR No. 356 dated 15.8.2003 was registered at Police Station Assandh under Sections 323, 325, 447, 506 IPC read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC, against Sardara son of Sultan and others, on the basis of statement of the petitioner. In the said case, cross case was also registered on the basis of statement of Sardara against the petitioner and his co-accused under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. In the cross-case, challan was filed and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charge was framed against the petitioner and his co-accused on 15.1.2004. After framing of charge, the prosecution Crl. Revn. No. 1909 of 2006 -2- examined PWs Rajinder and Sardara on 13.5.2004, who in their statements on oath, supported the prosecution case. Subsequently, an application was filed for summoning the additional accused, which was allowed on 11.6.2004 and two more accused were summoned as additional accused who were also charge sheeted on 5.8.2004. Thereafter, Sardara and Rajinder PWs again appeared in the witness box and supported the prosecution case. They were cross examined at length. The other two prosecution witnesses, namely Ravinder Kumar and Som Pal also supported the prosecution version. They were also cross examined at length. Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded and the case was adjourned for defence evidence. Some of the defence witnesses were examined. At that stage, accused filed the instant application for re-calling the four prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination on the ground that they have given affidavits to the effect that when they appeared in the witness box, they were under the influence of the police and they have not stated the correct facts. Now, they are ready to make statements again in order to explain the truth. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court, while observing as under :- “6. There is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecution witnesses when appeared in the witness box were influenced by the police or any one else. They had sufficient opportunity to bring to the notice of the court if any influence being put to them. None of the witnesses ever complained about any such influence put to them by the police. Said allegations levelled in the application that the prosecution witnesses deposed under the pressure and influence of the police are false and concocted one. Since there had been a compromise between the accused and the complainant, this application has been moved in collusion with each other. Since the accused were afforded adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and there was nothing on record to suggest that the witnesses were under influence of the police, so the witnesses already examined Crl. Revn. No. 1909 of 2006 -3- cannot be re-called on any ground....”. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid four prosecution witnesses have given affidavits to the effect that previously they had deposed in the court under the pressure and influence of the police and did not disclose correct facts, therefore, in view of this fact and in the interest of justice, these witnesses should be re-called for their further cross- examination in the court. He further submits that under Section 311 of the Code, wide power has been given to the Court to re-call or re-examine any witness already examined at any stage of the trial, if his evidence appears to it to be essential for the just decision of the case. Counsel submits that keeping in view the aforesaid affidavits, close relations between the complainant and the accused side, and the fact of subsequent compromise between them, it will be essential to re-call those witnesses for the just decision of the case. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Though Section 311 of the Code confers wide power on the court to re-call or re- examine any witness already examined, if his evidence appears to it to be essential for the just decision of the case, but this discretionary power is to be exercised only to prevent failure of justice or to advance the justice, if such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The object of this Section as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution, but also from the point of view to advance justice. The Court examines evidence under this Section neither to help the prosecution nor to help the accused. It is done neither to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution evidence nor it can be exercised to give unfair advantage to the accused. Once a witness deposes on oath against the accused as a prosecution witness, subsequently, he cannot be permitted to perjure himself by resiling from testimony given by him earlier in the court on oath. Such course will not be in the interest of justice, particularly when the accused were afforded adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and Crl. Revn. No. 1909 of 2006 -4- there is nothing on record to suggest that the witnesses were under the influence of the police. Dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court in Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 731 has held that once a witness is examined as a prosecution witness and subjected to detailed cross examination by the accused, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from the testimony given in the court on oath. In that case, the witness had given an affidavit after recording his statement in the court, to the effect that his earlier deposition in the court was not true and it was done at the instance of the police. Similarly, in Manghi @ Narmada v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 739, the witnesses were examined by the prosecution and after the cross-examination, they were discharged. In these circumstances, it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that those witnesses cannot be re-called for re-examination or further cross-examination merely because they have filed affidavits contrary to their deposition made before the trial court. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Dismissed. September 19, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE