Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Petitioner v. Respondent

    Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant.

    The present application is taken to eschew the evidence of DW1 on the premise that the said witness has left from service on the defendant's company and therefore the deposition of DW1 has to be eschewed and on his place, a new witness has been examined.

    2. The learned counsel for the applicant would rely upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in G.Gopalakrishna and Ors. Vs. G.Venugopal and Ors. reported in MANU/AP/0399/2013 and the judgment of this Court rendered in Sundar Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in MANU/TN/4182/201.

    3. Both these judgments, which are relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, are arising from the fact that the said subject witness was dead or whereabouts was not known. Whereas, in the present case, the witness who mounted into the box and examination in chief is alive and whereabouts is very well known.

    4. Having subjected himself for examination, mere severance of Master and Servant relationship between the witness and the defendant will not render the evidence to be eschewed. The witness is bound to subject himself for cross examination and in case, if he does not support the party, who has called him to give evidence and make any statement contrary to his previous statement, in the course of the cross examination, the party who has called him to give evidence has every right to treat him hostile with leave of this Court and cross examine the witness. Eschewing the testimony already recorded will arise only if the person who has made the previous statement is no more or could not be traced for want of his present whereabouts.

    5. The reasons stated in the affidavit does not attract any of the reason to eschew his evidence. This sort of application if entertaining, indirectly, the trial will be protracted by changing the authorised person to give evidence in the midst of the trial and force the Court to record evidence again and again. Hence, the application is dismissed as devoid of merits.

    6. The defendant shall ensure the presence of Mr.Aravind Mohan (DW1) before the Additional Master II for further examination and subject himself for cross examination on 07.02.2020.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Petitioner v. Respondent
    (Jan 10, 2020)