Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 438 (MP)

Narendra @ Nikki v. State of M. P.

2013-04-02

ANIL SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity) in special case no.122/07, whereby the application filed under section 311 of Cr. P. C. for recalling the complainant has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. 3. Complainant Harprasad (PW-1) was examined on 30.7.2008. 4. Thereafter, on behalf of the accused, application was filed under section 311 of Cr. P. C. for recalling Harprasad (PW-1) for examining him on the important question of identification of the accused. Application has been dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 on the ground that detailed cross examination of the witness has been conducted by the counsel of the accused, therefore, there is no need of recalling the witness. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that further cross examination regarding identification of the accused is necessary in the interest of justice as the then counsel of the accused has not asked the question challenging the identification of the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this court passed in the matter of Shahid Roshan Jameer v. State of M.P., 2002 (2) MPHT 39 , in which it has been held that court has inherent power to recall a witness, if satisfied that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he had given at the trial.” But, this judgment relates to a case wherein witness has filed affidavit which was contrary to earlier statement. 7. On perusal of statement of witness Harprasad (PW-1) it is clear that cross examination statement has been recorded in six pages which includes the question regarding test identification parade and identification of the accused before the court. Therefore, the learned trial court is justified in passing the impugned order exercising its discretionary powers which needs no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Resultantly, criminal revision is dismissed.