VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

974 DECISION - 547
(547)
Witnesses — turning hostile
Where public prosecutor did not seek permission
to cross-examine witness for prosecution when he
deposed in favour of the defence during his
examination-in-chief and allowed his crossexamination
by the defence, it does not call for
interference.
State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav,
2002 Cri.L.J. SC 3236
The Supreme Court observed that when the witness called
by the prosecution has resiled from his expected stand even in chiefexamination
the permission to put cross-questions should have been
sought then. The refusal of permission to cross question the witness
sought by the Public Prosecutor after cross-examination of witness
was over cannot be said to be a wrong exercise of discretion vested
in the trial Judge liable to be interfered with in appeal. Moreover if
the public prosecutor is not prepared to own the testimony of the
witness examined by him he can give expression of it in different
forms. One of such forms is the one envisaged in sec. 154 of the
Evidence Act. The very fact that he sought permission of the court
soon after the end of the cross-examination was enough to indicate
his resolve not to own all what the witness said in his evidence. It is
again open to the public prosecutor to tell the court during final
consideration that he is not inclined to own the evidence of any
particular witness in spite of fact the said witness was examined on
his side. When such options are available to a public prosecutor it is
not a useful exercise for the Supreme Court to consider whether the
witness shall again be called back for the purpose of putting cross
questions to him.
(548)
Trial — time limits
Supreme Court could not have prescribed periods
of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case