ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਹੋਰ ਜਿਰਹਾ ਲਈ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ ( Recalling of witness for further cross examination)

   ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਹੋਰ ਜਿਰਹਾ ਲਈ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ ( Recalling of witness for further cross –                  examination)

(Sections 311, 391 Cr.P.C.)

ਗਵਾਹ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਮੁਕੰਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਪ੍ਰਸਥਿਤੀਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਸ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

1. ਧਾਰਾ 311 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ ਉਸ ਸਮੇਂ ਹੀ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਦੋਂ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦੇ ਨਿਆਂ ਸੰਗਤ (ਜੁਸਟ) ਫੈਸਲੇ ਲਈ ਕਿਸੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ।

Case : State of West Bengal v/s Tulsidass Mundhra 1964 (1) Cri.L.J.443 (SC – FB)

Para “9. ….. But if it is satisfied that the evidence of any person not examined or further evidence of any person already examined is essential to the just decision of the case, it is its duty to take such evidence. …….”

2. ਬਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਠੋਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਦੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਜਿਰਹਾ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ ਨਿਆਂ ਸੰਗਤ ਨਹੀਂ।

Case : Kunwar Pal Vs State of U.P., 2002 Cri.LJ 3647 (Allahabad – HC)

Para “6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witness could not be cross-examined fully and has to be cross-examined on several points. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be correct. No specific point has been mentioned on which the witnesses are required to be further cross-examined.”

3. ਧਿਰਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਏ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਖਾਲਾ (facilitate) ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ, ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਤੋਂ ਮੁੱਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ ਤਰਕਸੰਗਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : Kunwar Pal Vs State of U.P., 2002 Cri.LJ 3647

“…allegations show that this case has also been compounded and, accordingly, the witnesses are required to be recalled so that they may turn hostile. The purpose for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination is that they may resile from the earlier statement by which they have supported the prosecution case.”

4. ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਦੌਰਾਨ, ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਮਰਹਲੇ (stage) ਉੱਪਰ ‘ਹੋਰ ਗਵਾਹੀ’ (additional evidence) ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਫਾਈ (defence evidence) ਤੇ ਲੱਗਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਵੀ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Nirmal d/o Manohar Lal v/s State of Punjab, 2002 Cri.L.J.447 (PH -HC)

Para “6. ….. In my opinion, there would be no prejudice to the accused even if the prosecution is allowed to produce the report of the handwriting expert after the close of the prosecution evidence and even after the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had been recorded, especially when the case is still at the stage of defence evidence and the accused can produce evidence in their defence to rebut the report of the handwriting expert. Accordingly, I uphold the order of the learned Sessions Judge, with regard to the permission granted to the prosecution to produce the report of the handwriting expert by way of additional evidence.”

 5. ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ (material) ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਸਾਜ-ਬਾਜ ਕਰਨ ਕਾਰਨ ਛੱਡ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Kala @ Karnail Singh v/s State of Haryana 1998, Cri.L.J.160 (PH-HC)

 Para “6.  In the instant case, Mahinder Singh who was earlier given up as having been won over, is an injured eye- witness of the occurrence. He is the person who is the author of the First Information Report on the basis of which the law was put in motion against the accused persons. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that examination of Mahinder Singh is essential for just decision of the case. Mahinder Singh is an important witness in the case and was given up under a bona fide belief that he had been won over by the accused. ….

 7  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the trial Court in exercising the inherent powers under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for allowing the prosecution to examine Mahinder Singh informant as a prosecution witness, was erroneous in law. In my considered view, in the interest of justice and fair trial of the case, the trial Court was fully justified to pass the impugned order and as such, no interference is called for……”

6. ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਬੁਲਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਪੀੜਿਤ ਧਿਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਵੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Om Parkash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Crl.LJ 470499 (Rajasthan- HC)

Para “10. In the present case, the application signed by the complainant was submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor under his signature and therefore, it cannot be said that it was presented by the complainant only and not by the Additional Public Prosecutor. Before this Court, the State has not preferred revision but, supported the petitioner. The petitioner is father of the deceased and an aggrieved person. In laws of deceased are arrayed as accused in the case. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the objection of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner relating to locus-standi is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.”

7. ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋ ਜਾਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਕਰਨ ਨੂੰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਦੇ ਨੁਕਸ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (filling up of lacuna).

Case : Om Parkash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Crl.LJ 470499 (Rajasthan- HC)

 Para “12. Fundamental thing to be seen is whether this evidence the Court thinks necessary in the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it. If this resulting in what is sometimes thought to be the “filling of lacunae” as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into consideration.

13. XXX
14. XXX
15. XXX
16. …… At this stage, the application ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay. The documents to be produced, cannot be called forged one by any stretch of imagination. At this stage, lacuna even it remains after examination of witnesses relating to link evidence in the statement of P.W. 15 Kuljeet Singh cannot be considered. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses are necessary for the just decision of the case. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order ignoring the principles of ‘ex debito justiciae’. The reasons given by it are legally impermissible and not based on sound exercise of power. It cannot be said that the rights of the acused will be prejudiced or jeopardized in any manner.”

8. ਜਿਸ ਗਵਾਹ ਦਾ ਬਿਆਨ ਧਾਰਾ 161 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਅਧੀਨ ਨਾ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਸਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Om Parkash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Crl.LJ 470499 (Rajasthan- HC)

Para “17. There is no bar that a witness, whose statement U/s. 161 Cr. P.C. had not been recorded the time of investigation, cannot be allowed to examine u/s. 311 Cr. P.C. Under Section 231 Cr. P.C., the Court is to take all evidence produced in support of the prosecution. Therefore, where the statement of witness is not recorded U/s. 161 Cr. P.C., but the prosecution with the prior permission of the Court produce such a witness, the accused cannot be said to have taken by the surprise. “