The High Court of Madras passed a judgment on 27 April 2023 stating that if the witnesses are repeatedly examined, there bound to occur some inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence due to fading and failing memory, long after the incident, chief examination and cross examination . It was stated in the case of RAJESH DAS Vs. STATE (CRL OP.8045/2023) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKARAN
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This petition is filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram and consequently, directing to allow the petition to recall the witnesses PW.1 Tmt.Nisha Parthiban (LW-1) and PW.6 Mr.Parthiban (LW-2) . 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner filed for recalling PW.1 and PW.6. The reason for recalling PW.1 and PW.6 is that after examining them. There is a large conspiracy against the petitioner, wherein certain top officials conspired to spoil the carrier of petitioner. Only if petitioner is permitted to recall PW.1 and PW.6 for the purpose of further cross examination on the evidence, petitioner would be in a position to expose the conspiracy against him and establish his innocence. Without considering the merits in the claim of petitioner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, this petition is filed.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
If the witnesses are repeatedly examined, there bound to occur some inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence due to fading and failing memory, long after the incident, chief examination and cross examination. If the inconsistent and contradictory evidence is allowed to be recorded, due to the fault on the part of the accused, in not immediately cross examining the witnesses, there is a possibility that that would materially affect the outcome of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has time and again reiterated that witnesses should not be recalled for the purpose of cross examination again and again. In fact, the chief examination and cross examination should be completed on the same date.The judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that that was the case where the prayer for examination of witnesses was not considered favourably. It is not the case where the prayer by petitioner for cross examination of witnesses was refused. Petitioner wants the witnesses to be summoned for further cross examination. Therefore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. This Court finds from the records that the witnesses had been extensively cross examined and that, they cannot be permitted to confront and contradict the evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly considered the issue and dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any reason to take a different view of the matter and therefore, the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.1962 of 2023 is confirmed and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.
8
