Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. On hearing either sides, it has come out that the stand taken by the court below through Annexure-A order is not correct. Five occurrence witnesses were cited by the prosecution in the case involving serious offences, including the offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution is mainly relying on circumstantial evidence and therefore, the last seen together theory has got much importance. All the aforesaid 5 witnesses were supposed to speak regarding the said aspect also.
3. In that context, it seems that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has forwarded a request for deferring the cross-examination CWs 1 to 5 till the chief examination of all the said witnesses. The court below ought to have granted the said request. It is not a violation of Crl.M.C.No.171 of 2018 2 Section 309 Cr.P.C. as highlighted by the court below. The court below ought to have allowed the said request. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A order passed by the court below is quashed. The court below shall adjourn the cross-examination of CW1 to CW4 till the completion of the chief examination of CW5. Issue photocopy today itself. Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/9/1/18 //True Copy // P.A.To Judge