Kunwar Pal @ Kumar Pal vs State of U.P.and another

B.A. Zaidi, J.—Revisioner Kunwar Pal alias Kumar Pal, who is being prosecuted in (S.T. No. 70 of 2000) on a charge under section 302, I.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19 Bulandshahr, has come to this Court for setting aside an order dated 16.8.2007, vide which the trial Court refused to recall P.W. 9 S.I. Karan Singh, P.W. 11 Hari Chandra Panda P.W. 12 S.I. Sharda Prasad Mishra for crossexamination and rejected the application of the accused applicant.

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

It is true that despite a few opportunities given to the revisionists by the Trial Sessions Judge, he did not avail them and not crossexamined these witnesses.

The explanation of the accused, is that his earlier Counsel abandoned the legal profession, and did not pay heed to him and he, therefore, had to engage another Counsel who had moved an application for recalling the affronted witnesses for crossexamination. The forthcoming explanation is sufficient to recall these witnesses which the Trial Court refused.

Courts have always been lenient and consider in such a situation to recall the witnesses because a decision after giving effective opportunity for crossexamination has greater value and finality. The judicial tradition of latitude in such matters encapsulates the twin value of judicial magnanimity, and justice tempered with mercy. It has always been the consistent view of Courts that in such situation the expenses of recalling the witnesses may be saddled on the accused.

Revision is, therefore, allowed. The Trial Sessions Judge on 20.9.2007 will direct the accused to deposit the amount of expenditure of the aforenoted witnesses and will summon them for crossexamination and in case he fails to crossexamine them, no further opportunity will be given to the accused.

Revision disposed of accordingly.

Revision Allowed.