BAL KISHUN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) It appears that the applicant is being tried under Sections 452, 376, 504 and 506, I.P.C. vide the Sessions Trial No. 248 of 2009, State v. Balkishun, arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2007, P.S. Katera Mauranipur, District Jhansi in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. An application on behalf of the applicant was moved under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the witness Jagdish Prasad, the husband of the complainant Smt. Rani as a prosecution witness.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid witness was one of the most important witness and, therefore, his evidence was necessary for dispensation of justice. The learned Sessions Judge refused to summon the witness Jagdish Prasad on the ground that he had been discharged by the Public Prosecutor on 10.6.2010, therefore, it was not desirable to summon him.