IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019
ORDER IN CRL.MP.NO.20/2019 IN S.C. NO.635 OF 2015 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN CHILDREN, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 ELDHOSE, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O.MATHAI,PATHICKAL HOUSE,
PANDIKADU BHAGOM,MUDAKUZHA KARA,
VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
2 MARIAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O.MATHAI, PATHICKAL HOUSE,
PANDIKADU BHAGOM, MUDAKUZHA KARA,
VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
3 JANCY, AGED 36 YEARS,
W/O. SAKARIA, THOMBRA HOUSE, ONNAM MILE BHAGOM,
IRINGOL KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.SANU MATHEW
SMT.V.S.SIMI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODANADU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
SMT. MAYA M. N.-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 2
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners assailing the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. By the said order, the
learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application filed by the
learned Public Prosecutor and orders were issued to recall PW2 and
PW18 in exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
2. To understand the case of the petitioners, a brief reference
to the sequence of events is necessary.
3. The petitioners herein are the accused in S.C.No.635/2015
on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for trial of cases relating
to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children,
Ernakulam. In the aforesaid case, they are being tried for having
committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) r/w
Section 34 of the IPC.
4. The 1st accused is the husband of deceased Sheela. The
accused Nos.2 and 3 are his mother and sister respectively.
According to the prosecution, deceased Sheela took her own life
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 3
within seven years of her marriage due to the continuous torture and
harassment meted out by the accused.
5. PWs 1 and 2 are the wife and husband respectively. PW2 is
a distant relative of the deceased. According to the prosecution, PW1
and PW2 were privy to the acts of harassment meted out to the
deceased by her husband. The examination of witnesses commenced
on 19.12.2016. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the
incriminating materials arising there from were put to the accused
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On the side of the defence, certain
witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an
application to issue summons to certain witnesses and they were
examined as additional witnesses on 5.9.2018. The accused were
again questioned. Both sides were heard. Immediately thereafter, an
application was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. requesting to
recall and re-examine PWs 1, 2 and 18. It was stated in the
application that the prosecution wants to recall PW1 and PW2 for
further cross-examining them and to contradict their own witnesses
by their previous statement in writing. It was also requested that
after the said witnesses are examined, PW18, the investigating officer
is to be recalled to mark the contradicted portion.
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 4
6. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the application
holding that the prosecution has to be granted a chance to put further
questions to PW2 as he was not confronted properly with his previous
statement in writing. It appears that in his previous statement, he had
stated that the deceased Sheela had divulged to him about the acts of
abuse and ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused and he had
stated all these aspects in his 161 statement. However, while he was
chief examined, the concerned Prosecutor failed to bring out these
facts in evidence. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that
recalling of PW18 was also necessary in the interest of justice.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the court below was not justified in allowing the
application. She pointed out that PW1 did not support the prosecution
case and was, therefore, declared hostile. PW2 is the husband of
PW1 and he deposed in tune with the prosecution version. The failure
of the Prosecutor to seek the permission of the court to put any
question which might be put in cross examination by the adverse
party after declaring him unfavourable to the prosecution cannot now
be permitted is the argument. It is contended that by recalling the
said witness and by discrediting him, no purpose would be served.
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 5
The learned counsel would further contend that the power under
Section 311 should be exercised judicially and with extreme care and
caution. Such an endeavor has not been made, argues the learned
counsel. He would further contend that the application submitted
before the court below lacks material particulars and all that was
stated is that the recalling of witnesses is required for confronting
him. The attempt is to fill up the lacuna and cause prejudice to the
accused.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted
that his counter part before the trial court noticed after the hearing
was over that PW2 had substantially resiled from his earlier version
and he had omitted to seek permission from the court below to put
questions to his witness, which might be put in cross examination.
This has prompted the Public Prosecutor to file the application. The
order passed is not liable to be interfered is the submission.
9. Having heard the fervent submissions of the learned
counsel, I was persuaded by the contentions and was inclined to
dispose of this petition with directions. However, it was felt that the
matter had to be heard in more detail and the case was posted as to
be spoken to.
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 6
10. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. would
show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts
when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or
re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision
shows that the expression “any” has been used as a prefix to “court”,
“inquiry”, “trial”, “other proceeding”, “person as a witness”, “person
in attendance though not summoned as a witness”, and “person
already examined”. By using the said expression “any” as a prefix to
the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that
all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was only in relation
to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just
decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the
order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-
examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired
for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. and Section 138 of the Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the
question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire
of any person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in
consonance with the prescription contained in Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C. and its application in a particular case can be ordered by
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 7
the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said
provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case. The power
vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any
stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the
Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for
examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as
witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined.
Insofar as recalling and re-examination of any person already
examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that such
recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the
Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the
paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose, the
essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined, has to be
ascertained. To put it differently, while such a widest power is
invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise of such
power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and
caution. (see Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another
[(2013) 14 SCC 461].
11. On going through the materials made available and after
perusing the evidence let in by the witness, I am of the view that the
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 8
learned Sessions Judge was well justified in allowing the application
filed by the prosecution to recall and re-examine the witness. The trial
court had concluded that the Prosecutor had faltered at the stage of
cross examining PW2. He had failed to elicit admissions of facts when
the witness was in the box. The contention of the learned counsel that
the only purpose of cross-examination of a witness is solely to
discredit him may not be correct; it ignores the hard truth that
another equally important object of cross-examination is to elicit
admissions of facts which would help to build the case of the cross-
examiner. When a party with the leave of the court, confronts his
witness with his previous inconsistent statement, he does so in the
hope that the witness might revert to what he had stated previously. If
the departure from the prior statement is not deliberate, but is due to
faulty memory or a like cause, there is every possibility of the witness
veering round to his former statement. Thus, showing faultiness of
the memory in the case of such a witness would be another object of
cross-examining and contradicting him by a party calling the witness.
In short, the rule prohibiting a party to put questions in the manner of
cross-examination or in a leading form to his own witness is relaxed
not because the witness has already forfeited all right to credit, but
because from his antipathetic attitude or otherwise, the court feels
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 9
that for doing justice, his evidence will be more fully given, the truth
more effectively extricated and his credit more adequately tested by
questions put in a more pointed, penetrating and searching way. (See
Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1976 SC 294]).
12. I am also not impressed with the submission of the learned
counsel that the recalling of PW2 would only be an empty formality. It
is the law that in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party
calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as
washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider
in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and
contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still
be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that
in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely
shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the
witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of
the other evidence on the record that part of his testimony which he
finds to be credit worthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole
of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the
witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge normally, as
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 10
a matter of prudence, would discard his evidence in toto. The trial
court after anxiously considering the application had come to the
conclusion that the recalling and re-examining PWs 2 and 18 was
essential for a just decision of the case. For the aforementioned
reasons, I find no reason to take a different view.
This petition is disposed of with the above observations.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 670 of 2019 11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.20/2009 FILED
BY THE PROSECUTOR IN S.C.NO.635/2015 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIIES AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN CRL.M.P.NO.20/2019 IN
S.C.NO.635/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE
WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
ANNEXURE A3 FREE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.20/2018 IN
S.C.635/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE
WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL