Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 198 (MP)

Akbar Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-02-13

B.D.RATHI

body2015
JUDGMENT: B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. assails the order dated 16/1/2015 passed in SST No. 93/14 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, district Shivpuri whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the witnesses have already been examined/cross- examined at length and thereafter case has been fixed for final arguments. 3. As per the fact of the case, the petitioner/accused is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376of I.P.C. During the course of trial, Murarilal (PW-1), Poonam (PW-2), Smt. Kiran (PW-3), Badam Singh (PW-4), Dr. A.K.Sharma (PW-5), Ramprakash Sharma (PW-6), Dr. Neerja Sharma (PW-7), Dr. K.P. Sharma (PW-8), Smt. Prabhawati (PW-9), Surendra Pal Singh (PW-10) on behalf of the prosecution and from defence, Akbari Haisan (DW-1) and Rafiq (DW-2) have already been examined. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as mentioned above was conducted by Shri K.K.Shrivastava, Advocate appointed by the petitioner. In the meantime, one application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Shri K.K. Shrivastava, is a junior counsel having no much wide experience of conducting examination/cross-examination of the witnesses especially in such kind of trial cases and therefore the petitioner wants to engage some other counsel for proper examination/cross-examination of the witnesses. Taking the aforesaid grounds, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused/petitioner which has been dismissed by the trial court as mentioned above, hence, the revision before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the counsel engaged by the petitioner has failed to conduct cross- examination of witnesses properly; that material portions of the evidence available on record have not been put to the witnesses to contradict their statements; the failure of the counsel to elicit these contradictions precludes the petitioner from putting forth an effective defense and in such circumstances, the petitioner moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. by expressing his wishes to engage Shri Prem Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the averments taken above and rejected the application. It is submitted by the counsel that the change of the counsel shall not improve the matter for the petitioner and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the application is allowed. On the other hand, the accused would be more prejudiced on account of the failure of his counsel to effectively cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, it is submitted that the present is a fit case where in the interests of justice, the application should have been allowed by the trial court. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the submissions aforesaid on the ground that on perusal of the statements and cross-examination of the witnesses, it is vividly clear that all the witnesses have been cross-examined at length. The entire defence has been very well put before the witnesses during their cross-examination and apart that when the prosecution has already examined its witnesses and the defence evidence was already led and the case has been fixed for pronouncement of the judgment after hearing final arguments of both the sides, the right to seek relief under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. stands automatically waived and cannot be invoked. It is therefore prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the arguments, the entire case has been examined. 7. In order to properly appreciate the contentions advanced above by the counsel for the parties, Section 311 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under :- 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. "Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person its a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." Section 353(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about judgment. "353(1) :The judgment in every trial in any Criminal court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleader.- (a) by delivering the whole of the judgment; or (b) by reading out the whole of the judgment; or (c) by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader." 8. No doubt, from the bare reading of the Section 311 Cr. P. C., it is revealed that any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. if the evidence of such person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The intention of the Legislation is that if a material evidence has not been produced before the Court, in that case, the Court can summon any person or allow the production of any that evidence at any stage of the trial. 9. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses named aforesaid, who have been adduced by the prosecution and defence, it is clear that entire defence has been very well put before such witnesses of the prosecution at the time of cross- examination. Apart that important contradictions have been brought on record by asking relevant questions to the witnesses, therefore on this ground the petition cannot be entertained. 10. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed and thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments by the trial court and during the pendency of this revision final arguments were also advanced by the petitioner and prosecution and thereafter criminal case has been posted for delivery of judgment. On conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 311 and 353(1) of Cr.P.C. quoted above shows that the scope of section 311 of Cr.P.C. will no more now remain in existence because after hearing the final arguments of both the sides and fixation of the case for pronouncement of the judgment itself shows that the trial has been terminated. On conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 311 and 353(1) of Cr.P.C. quoted above shows that the scope of section 311 of Cr.P.C. will no more now remain in existence because after hearing the final arguments of both the sides and fixation of the case for pronouncement of the judgment itself shows that the trial has been terminated. Hence, in the aforesaid factual matrix it is clear that during pendency of this petition right under section 311 of Cr.P.C. stands waived by the petitioner himself by arguing his case finally before the trial court. So, on this ground also, the petition cannot be entertained. 11. The third ground as urged before this court is regarding change of counsel by the petitioner which in itself cannot be a ground for consideration of application filed section 311 of Cr.P.C. 12. Therefore, taking into all these aspects of the matter this court is not inclined to open the closed trial once again. Hence, there is no merit in this revision and it is dismissed accordingly. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for further compliance.