VIJAY KUMAR LUTHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2002 whereby the learned Judge in his order on charge has discharged Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal as also Sunita and Beena.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the supplementary statements of the injured recorded by the Investigating Agency which was changed to Crime Branch at the request of the complainant, the name of Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal find mention as one of the persons responsible in the causing of the injuries. He submits that finding arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge that no supplementary statement of a witness can be recorded, is incorrect. He further submits that there is no material on record at the moment to show involvement of Sunita or Beena, since they have not yet been identified by any other witnesses.

(3.) Counsel appearing for Sushil Tewari and Zia Lal submits that the supplementary statement is an afterthought. The complainant could have named them in the first instance, but have not done so, the supplementary statement cannot be read at this juncture to frame a charge.