Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 287 (TRI)

Nitya Ranjan Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2014-07-23

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03-09-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in case No. S.T. 61(WT/K) of 2003 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein for recalling P.W.s 11 to 18 who were examined by the trial Court on 22-08-2005 and 23-08-2005 respectively. 2. I have perused the order dated 22-08-2005 and it shows that an application for adjournment was made by the accused Nitya Ranjan Debbarma on the ground that his counsel Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee, an Advocate of the Agartala Bar, was unwell and could not appear in Court. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, another Advocate of the Khowai Bar, appointed by the same accused was present but he declined to cross-examine the witnesses. The same situation is reflected in the order dated 23-08-2005. 3. The net result is that there is no cross-examination of these witnesses. When the application was moved, it was rejected only on the ground that the counsel did not produce any certificate of his ailment. Though this Court is not at all satisfied with the manner in which Mr. A. Bhattacharjee conducted himself, the accused cannot be denied an opportunity to put forth his case. The right of cross-examination is a very important right. When the junior counsel from the Khowai Bar was not willing to conduct the cross-examination, how could one expect the accused to properly conduct the cross-examination? The trial Court may have been justified in passing the orders which he passed on 22-08-2005 and 23-08-2005 respectively because when the counsel representing the accused refused to cross-examine the witnesses, then the trial Court had no other option but to examine the witnesses and record their statements. However, after the application for recalling all these witnesses was filed, the trial Court should have been more liberal and should have permitted the witnesses to be recalled so that they could be cross-examined. 4. In this view of the matter, the order under challenge is set aside. The witnesses No. P.W.s 11 to 18 are directed to be produced again for cross-examination on two separate dates. The dates shall be fixed by the learned trial Court well in advance. It shall be the responsibility of the accused-petitioner to arrange for a counsel to appear on the said date. The witnesses No. P.W.s 11 to 18 are directed to be produced again for cross-examination on two separate dates. The dates shall be fixed by the learned trial Court well in advance. It shall be the responsibility of the accused-petitioner to arrange for a counsel to appear on the said date. If again a counsel does not appear, then no further opportunity shall be granted and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter on the basis of the statement of the witnesses as available on record. 5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28-08-2014 on which date the learned trial Judge shall fix two dates for examination of the said witnesses in the month of September itself and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case latest by 31-12-2014. 6. The Registry is directed to ensure that the lower Court record is sent back to the learned trial Court so as to reach well before the next date. 7. The criminal revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.