Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Masiur Rahman Molla @ Mongla And Others vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 10 August, 2016
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
1 S/L.122. C.R.R. No.2411 of 2016 August 10, 2016 Bpg. In the matter of : Masiur Rahman Molla @ Mongla and others Versus The State of West Bengal and others Ms. Sayanti Santra.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Ayan Basu.
...for the State.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated May 26, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.VIII, Alipore in Sessions Trial no.3(7) of 2015, by which learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to defer cross-examination of P.W.1 till completion of examination-in- chief of C.S.W. 3 to 8.
Ms. Sayanti Santra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that P.W.1 and C.S.W. 3 to 8 are close relatives and they are eyewitnesses to the incident and as such defence of the accused persons will be disclosed if the cross-examination of P.W.1 and cross-examination of C.S.W. 3 to 8 is not deferred till completion of examination-in-chief of C.S.W. 3 to 8 as per provision laid down in Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Ayan Basu, learned counsel representing the State submits that C.S.W. 5 is not eyewitness to the incident and as such the petitioners being the accused persons will not be prejudiced if the cross-examination of C.S.W 5 is not deferred till completion of examination-in-chief of C.S.W. 3 to 8.
Having heard learned counsel representing both parties and on consideration of the impugned order under challenge in the revision, I find that learned Judge of the trial court has refused to defer cross-examination of C.S.W. 3 to 8 merely on the ground that all the witnesses are related with each other. Learned Judge of the trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that all these witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident except C.S.W. 5. Since there is possibility of causing prejudice to the petitioners if the cross-examination of 2 C.S.W.3, C.S.W. 4, C.S.W. 6, C.S.W. 7 and C.S.W.8 is not deferred till completion of examination-in-chief of all these witnesses, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by learned Judge of the trial court. It is relevant to point out that there is no need of deferring cross-examination of C.S.W. 5 as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of my above findings, the order dated May 26, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.VIII, Alipore in S.T. no.3(7) of 2015 is modified to the extent that the cross-examination of P.W.1 is deferred under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till completion of examination-in-chief of C.S.W. 3, C.S.W. 4, C.S.W. 6, C.S.W. 7 and C.S.W.8. The petitioners are at liberty to file application under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after completion of examination-in-chief of each of the witnesses, namely, C.S.W.3, C.S.W.4, C.S.W. 6, C.S.W.7 and C.S.W. 8 and learned Judge of the trial court will consider the said application of the petitioners on the basis of the observation made by me in the body of the order.
With the above direction, revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(R.K. Bag, J.)