RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 206 -A of 2006 (State v/s. Ram Singh) whereby the application Nos. 101 Kha and 103 Kha moved by applicant under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Santosh Singh, witness in defence was rejected.

(2.) It appears that applicant Ram Singh was facing trial along with three other accused persons under Sec. 302/120 -B IPC, P.S. Sureri, District Jaunpur. During pendency of the said trial, a bail application was moved by co accused Raghuraj Singh @ Raju before this Court, in which the following order was passed: - -

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid order, trial was hastened and three accused persons namely Munna Singh, Raghuraj Prasad and one Sunny Singh were finally convicted vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur. But trial of applicant Ram Singh was separated and renumbered as S.T. No. 206 -A of 2006 (State v/s. Ram Singh). During his trial, one witness namely Santosh Singh was discharged by the prosecution and not produced before the trial court. During trial of other accused persons, an application was moved by co accused Sunny for summoning Santosh Singh, which was rejected vide order dated 9.8.2007 on the ground that the prosecution had closed the evidence and the statement of accused persons had already been recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Judge also opined that accused person can summon the said witness in defence and if required the court may also issue summons.