MRITUNJAY SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court, Mirzapur, in S. T. No. 320 of 2000, State v. Ram Ji, under Section 302 IPC, police station Chilh, district Mirzapur, by which the application of the revisionist-accused for summoning Smt. Israwati, Ashish and Smt. Manorma and doctor as prosecution witness was rejected on the ground that the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine any witness.

(2.) HEARD Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. The revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1999 Cri. LJ 1955, Govind Ram v. State of U. P. and others, in which it has been held by this Court that the Court is duty bound to summon material witnesses and non-examination of material witness is improper. Another ruling cited by the revisionist is 2001 (1) JIC 279 (All) : 2000 (41) ACC 644, Imamuddin and others v. State of U. P. , in which it has been held by this Court that a person was witness of the fact in respect of occurrence, dying declaration and preparation of site plan, he was a material witness to be summoned and examined.