Case Title: Raman Kumar v. the State of Haryana and Another
The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that Section 311 CrPC, which makes provision for recall of material witnesses, is not meant to "cure defects" in the defence and thus, the defence counsel must remain "completely awakened" during cross-examination of witnesses.
The facts, in brief, are that the present petitioner is an accused in FIR No.784 of 02.11.2020, registered at Police Station Jagadhari City, District Yamuna Nagar, wherein an offence constituted under Section 302 of IPC, becomes embodied. The trial has reached the stage of proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., becoming drawn against the accused. The reason for the same is that lack of communication(s), and/or, his inability to interact with the accused, for eliciting from him relevant assistances rather for certain material exculpatory suggestions being meted to the PWs', whereas, they were necessary for becoming meted to them for enabling the defence to efficaciously carry forth its defence.
The Court however observed that “In so far as the above prayer is concerned, it is completely rudderless, and, is declined, as it is stated at the bar, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the proceedings which occurred through video conferencing the learned defence counsel was assisted by the accused…..”
It was further held that when he became assisted at the relevant stage, by the accused, thereupon too, he cannot lawfully strive to undo or cure the relevant omission through an
application cast, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
The Court while rejecting the petition observed that “... reiteratedly if the above permission is granted, thereupon it would lead to an undesirable consequence, inasmuch as, the defence, through making the above endeavour striving to improve, upon or making an untenable effort to cure the apposite defects, as, comprised in its not meeting suggestions, which were otherwise meteable earlier during the course of the witness concerned, being subjected to cross-examination. Since the defence counsel concerned, has to be completely awakened to the meteings of the apposite suggestions, and/or, qua the necessity of putting them as appropriate exculpatory defences, to the witness concerned, when he earlier puts him/her into cross-examination. Therefore, his subsequent awakenings from slumber would obviously, as stated above become, an impermissible recourse, to undo all the omissions which he earlier made, while putting exculpatory suggestions to the witnesses concerned. If he so desires, he can lead defence evidence after the termination of the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.”