Lakhvinder Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Another

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRR-706 of 2023 Date of Decision: 17.03.2023 Lakhwinder Sharma ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, through the instant petition, is seeking setting aside of order dated 11.01.2023 whereby ASJ, Jagadhri, has declined application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of cross examination of prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that after completion of cross examination of husband of the prosecutrix (PW7), the petitioner came to know of few important and material facts which need to be confronted to prosecutrix (PW5), thus, petitioner preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of cross examination of the prosecutrix. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From the reading of impugned order, it comes out that sole ground of recalling of cross examination of witness before the trial court was that few questions at the time of cross examination of PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.03.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR-706 of 2023 -2PW5 could not be asked, thus, accused-petitioner may be permitted to again cross examine the prosecutrix (PW5).

It is settled proposition of law that witnesses may be called at any stage for re-examination or further cross examination because intent and purport of trial is to protect the interest of both the parties. The intent and purport of the trial is not to punish the innocent person whereas entire object of the trial is to decipher truth from the bundle of facts and lies.

In the case in hand, petitioner has sought recalling of cross examination of the prosecutrix only on the ground that few questions at the time of cross examination could not be asked from PW5. The trial court has recorded categoric finding that there was lengthy cross examination of the prosecutrix and it is no ground to recall any witness for cross examination that few more questions need to be asked.

This Court does not find any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.

Dismissed.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 17.03.2023 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.03.17 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment