TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g trial for an offence under secs. 302-34 IPC and alternatively under secs. 364-34 IPC before the City Sessions Court, 13th Bench, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1 of November, 1987 (Session Case No. 5/87). The prosecution examined in all 34 witnesses. The last witness examined is the investigating officer (PW 34). His examination went on for a number of days and came to an end on March 16, 1989. On the next day that is, on March 17, 1989, the court examined the accused under sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded their statements. On March 21, 1989, the public prosecutor filed an application proposing some more questions to be put to the first appellant by way of re-examination under sec. 313 of the Code. On the same day, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 Cr.P.C. for further re-examination is rejected. On March 30, 1989 the public prosecutor applied for adjournment of the case on the ground that he would like to move the High Court against the aforesaid order dated March 21, 1988. The case was accordingly adjourned to April 18, 1989. It is said that in between these days some correction slip was filed in the Court seeking 25 corrections in the statement of PW 34. The said slip was not accompanied by any application nor was it served on counsel for the accused. The trial court, however, in the interest of justice rectified the typographical errors in the statement of PW 34 but refused to make other corrections which would have changed the substantive part of his evidence. The State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t typographical mistakes and in the name of correction the evidence already recorded cannot be changed. So other mistakes have not been corrected. He has also stated in the explanation: Unsigned correction slip in 3 loose sheet could not be sent earlier as the case recorded was forwarded in a hurry and the said correction slip is now enclosed herewith. The High Court, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and expressed the view that the trial judge has not followed the proper procedure envisaged in sec. 278 of the Code since he has 'a closed mind'. The Court also found fault with the procedure adopted by the prosecution, but liberty was reserved to the latter to file an application for re-examination of PW 34. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below to proceed afresh in the matter after the record- ing of evidence including the re-examination of PW 34 is complete and we would direct the court below further to hear out the submis- sions of the prosecution as welt as defence regarding framing of proper questions under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The High Court also accepted the demand for transfer of the case and the matter was left to the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court either to try the case by himself or to transfer to some other Bench regard being had to the congestion of the different Benches. In this appeal, the accused have challenged the legality of the order of the High Court. We have heard Mr. A.D. Giri, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Advocate General for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76 is completed it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected. (2) If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the magistrate or presiding judge may, instead of correcting the evidence make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness, and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary. The object of sec. 278 is two fold: firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further examination. In these circumstances, the liberty reserved to the prosecution to recall PW 34 for re-examination is undoubtedly uncalled for. There is yet another grave error committed by the High Court. It has expunged the entire examination under sec. 3 13 of the Code of all the accused. We fail to understand the need for this extraordinary step. It is unfortunate that the High Court should make that order. Assuming it was on ac- count of its permission to re-examine PW 34, even in that case it would be sufficient to further examine the accused with reference to the additional circumstances,' if any, appearing against the accused on such re-examination. The object of sec. 3 13 was that the accused may be given an opportunity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
