Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Friday last week allowed recalling of a Police head constable (HC) for his further examination in a case related to the assault on police personnel during a raid in Sabzi Mandi area.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Devender Kumar Jangala of Patiala House Court allowed the application of Delhi Police seeking the recalling of witness HC Satish Kumar, after 9 years and 117 dates. 

Calling it one of the “oldest matter”, the ASJ ordered “The prosecution is allowed to recall PW-4 HC Satish Kumar for concluding his examination in chief and cross examination. It is made clear that that the prosecution shall ensure the presence of the witness on the next date, without any further delay as it is one of the oldest matter of the court”.

The court was hearing an application moved by the State through Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) under Section 311 CrPC for recalling HC Satish Kumar.

The witness was previously examined in March 2014, thereafter his examination was deferred and was never called for further examination.

It was submitted that while going through the case file, at the stage of final arguments, it was revealed that Kumar was lastly examined in the court on March 20, 2014 and his further examination in chief was deferred as CD was required to be played. It was stated that inadvertently thereafter Kumar was never summoned for completing his deposition. The public prosecutor also prayed that Kumar may kindly be summoned to complete his deposition.

On the contrary, the counsel for the accused person vehemently opposed the plea on the ground that the prosecution had failed to disclose any justifiable explanation for such an inordinate delay as the said examination in chief was recorded on March 20, 2014.

The counsel argued that since March 20, 2014, 9 years had expired and 117 dates had taken place but the prosecution had miserably failed to take any steps to recall Kumar. It was also argued that at the end of the trial, all of a sudden the present application was moved by the prosecution. It was prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed with the imposition of heavy cost.

ASJ Jangala observed, “It is no doubt that there is an inordinate delay on behalf of the prosecution to move the present application, but at the same time it is the duty of the court to ensure that the best evidence should reach the court for just and effective decision of the case.”

The court said that the further examination of Prosecution Witness (PW) HC Satish Kumar is necessary for the “just and effective decision” of the case as he is the material witness. "It appears that PW was not recalled for further examination due to wrong noting of the jimney order," it observed.

On perusal of the record, the court said that Kumar was examined on March 20, 2014 and as per the recorded evidence his further chief examination was deferred at the request of the prosecution that the CD was required to be played to confirm the authenticity of the transcript.

"However in the jimney order of the said date i.e. 20.03.2014 it was inadvertently mentioned that the HC Satish Kumar is examined and discharged," the ASJ said.

However, the court clarified that the prosecution shall ensure the presence of the witness on the next date, without any further delay as it is one of the oldest matters of the court.

"Be put up for further examination of HC Satish Kumar on 17.08.2023. PW HC Satish Kumar be summoned through IO for the next date. MHCM is also directed to produce the case property and CD on the next date. IO is also directed to remain present on the next date along with the device to play the CD recording," the court said in its order dated July 28.

Case Title: State v. Sunil@ Sand & Ors.