SUBEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATNAKAR Dash, J. Heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. T Siddiqui, Counsel for the informant.

(2.) THE material eye-witness was not produced by the prosecution for cross-ex-, animation and feeling aggrieved thereby the applicant facing charge under Section 302 LP. C and other allied offences, has approached this Court by riling the present application seeking Court's intervention. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution cannot be compelled by the Court to examine any particular witness if that witness is gained over and will not support the prosecution version. It is the duty of the prosecution to decide what witnesses it should be examined. THE recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hukum Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) JIC 213, supports my view.