‘Pay Rs 5,000 each for e-library,’ accused in attempted murder case told as Madras High Court allows them to recall witnesses

‘Right to fair trial’

• The right to a fair trial is guaranteed in the Constitution.
• The petitioners will be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.
• The petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by the trial court on February 13 before 04.45 pm and file a memo in this regard.
• When such a memo is received, the trial court may permit the petitioners to recall and cross-examine the three witnesses on February 16.
• The petitioners must conclude the cross-examination of those witnesses on the same day, as no further time would be permitted.
• The police concerned are directed to bring the witnesses on the same day, facilitating the cross-examination by the petitioners.

‘Plea filed in 11th hour’

• Appearing for the petitioners, advocate M Kannan submitted that since it is a case of an attempt to murder (Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code), it is necessary for the fair ends of trial that the petitioner should cross-examine the said witnesses.
• Kannan also mentioned that the petitioners will not cause any further delay in the pending trial and are seeking a day for recalling and cross-examining the said witnesses.
• He pointed out that his clients are the accused in the pending case of 2022 before the trial court, in which they had earlier filed a petition seeking permission to recall and cross-examine three particular witnesses.
• Subsequently, the trial court allowed the said petition by an order on January 21 with certain conditions. However, his client failed to fulfil those conditions within the timeline given by the court concerned.
• He then mentioned that following this, his clients filed another plea seeking extension of time, which was returned by the trial court for filing the same with the proper laws and sought the indulgence of the Madras High Court.

• For the state, additional public prosecutor S Ravi submitted that this application should be rejected as the petitioners have filed this application in the 11th hour, when they should have argued, and it should have then posted for judgment.

IPC Section 307

Section 307 of the IPC deals with attempt to murder and provides that an act done with the intention or knowledge that it is likely to cause death may amount to attempt to murder, even if death is not caused.

In such cases, the accused may be punished with imprisonment for 10 years, along with a fine.

‘Postponement of cross-examination’

In another case of attempt to murder, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed the application of two accused men, both aged 22, to postpone the cross-examination of an eyewitness cited by the state so that their defence strategy is not prematurely disclosed, adversely affecting their case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said in the February 3 order, “In the present case, several witnesses are cited as eyewitnesses to the same incident and are closely related and proximally placed, the apprehension of the accused that early cross-examination would lay bare their defence cannot be brushed aside as fanciful. Such apprehension is not only plausible but judicially recognised.”

The court then deferred the cross-examination of the prosecution witness until the completion of the examination-in-chief of the remaining witnesses.

‘Clean library books’

In an unrelated case, the Patna High Court interestingly granted anticipatory bail to an accused on the condition of cleaning library books for a week.

The high court was in 2024, hearing the pre-arrest bail plea of the man who was charged with assaulting a woman and outraging her modesty.

It was noted by the court that the accused himself took an undertaking to perform two tasks as a condition for getting the relief – cleaning the library and planting saplings on the last day of his community service.