ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE applicants arc being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306/34, IPC before the Fast Track Court, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No. 41/2003. At the conclusion of the trial, an application under Section 311, Cr.PC was filed by the prosecution stating that the Head Constable who had registered the Merg Intimation No. 67/2001 could not be included in the list of witnesses due to mistake. It was urged that the examination of the said Head Constable is material and necessary. The said application was opposed. However, the Trial Court arriving at a conclusion that the said witness is material and necessary allowed the application and the summons have been issued. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have filed this petition. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the Court below erred in holding that any amendment like adding the name of the witness in previously filed challan paper comes under Section 311, Cr.PC, whereas there is no provision of amendment under Section 311 of Cr.PC.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposed the contention and submitted that the addition of witness is not prohibited. This Court in its order dated 14-8-2002 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1341/2002 (Rajesh Kumar @ Ramjan Khan v. State of C.G.), while referring to Page 58 of Lax Lexicon Sweet and Maxwell, wherein the word "amendment" has been defined, has held that the necessary corrections by way of amendment can be made at any stage of the proceedings. The definition of word "amendment" narrated in the said judgment is as follows:--