Delhi High Court
Dheeraj Singh Rana vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 February, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th February, 2013
+ CRL. M.C. 127/2013
DHEERAJ SINGH RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bankim K. Kulshrestha, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jasbsir Kaur, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By virtue of this Petition, the Petitioner, who is one of the accused in a
case under Sections 302/307/201 of the IPC read with Section 120-B IPC
invokes inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside of the order dated
19.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') and
seeks recalling of PW-1, PW-52, PW-114, PW-149, PW-168 and PW-
170 examined by the prosecution and summoning of the seven persons as
mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. The learned 'ASJ' while declining the Petitioner's request to recall the
earlier said witnesses gave detailed reasons as to when the witnesses were
examined and when they were cross-examined. The learned 'ASJ'
opined that the witnesses were cross examined at length and some of the
witnesses were cross examined on several dates. So much so, PW-168 SI
Manoj Tyagi was cross examined on about 27 dates of hearing between
05.04.2010 to 28.07.2012. The Petitioner has not given any reason for
recalling the earlier stated witnesses for the purpose of cross examination.
3. It is true that the powers conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the
Court are very wide. Any Court at any stage of inquiry or trial is
permitted to recall and re-examine any person already examined either
suo moto or at the request of any party. What is required to be shown by
the party making the request is that the evidence of the said person must
be essential for a just decision of the case.
4. In the instant case, there was not even a whisper as to why the Petitioner
wanted to further cross examine the witnesses sought to be recalled.
5. Similarly, seven witnesses which were sought to be summoned under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. was primarily on the count that in the initial report to
the Home Ministry the version of the senior police officers was that the
attack was made by three masked man. A letter dated 25.07.2001 written
by the Joint Commissioner of Police to Mr. P.K. Jalali, Joint Secretary
(UT), Ministry of Home Affairs has not been disputed by the prosecution.
In fact, the Additional Commissioner of Police in an RTI application
provided a copy of the letter dated 25.07.2001 to one Kuldeep Kumar, in
a reply furnished under RTI Act. Thus, the question of the report sent by
the Joint Commissioner of Police to the Home Ministry is not in dispute.
6. Learned 'ASJ' observed that an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for
production of the documents was disposed of with the observations that
the documents can be summoned and produced in his defence. Since the
initial information sent to the Home Ministry is not disputed, it cannot be
said that examination of these witnesses is essential for the just decision
of the case. The prayer to summon these seven witnesses under Section
311 Cr.P.C. was rightly declined by the learned ASJ. The order dated
19.12.2012 does not call for any interference under inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. It is clarified that this order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the
Petitioner to apply to the learned 'ASJ' to summon any of these witnesses
in defence and the learned 'ASJ' shall be at liberty to summon the
witnesses if the Petitioner is able to make out a case for their examination
in defence.
8. The Petition is disposed of in above terms.
9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2013
vk
