BACHCHOO SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revi­sion is directed against the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Aligarh in S.T. No. 973 of 2007 whereby an application under sec­tion 311 Cr. P.C. moved by the prosecution was allowed and one Rakesh was sum­moned as a witness. Heard learned Counsel for the revision­ist and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the witnesses of fact exam­ined by the prosecution have turned hos­tile. Rakesh was not named in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet as an eye-witness. He was not interrogated by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P.C. and by calling such person as a witness Amounts to filing the lacuna in the proseajtioh case, which should not be allowed.

(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. submitted that the F.l.R. was lodged at the instance of the de­ceased and bears the thumb impression of the deceased. It was mentioned in the G.D., whereby the case was registered at the po­lice station, that Rakesh was present at the police station at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged. It was also mentioned that the F.I.R. was presented at the police station by father of Rakesh. Considering all the facts and circum­stances of the case, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is appar­ent that the F.I.R. was scribed at the dicta­tion of the deceased and it bears the thumb impression of the deceased. The F.I.R. was taken to the police station by Rakesh and his father, whose presence is mentioned in the G.D. of the police station.