DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jitendra Kumar and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.

(2.) THE prosecution in its zeal to secure the conviction against the accused and to prove its case sometimes resorted to devices which is that of a persecutor and not that of a prosecutor. Many times the accused also with an idea of getting the acquittal succumbed to such tactics, which cannot be said to be fair. The present application has its genesis in the said methodology.

(3.) THE objection regarding the application 76 -B and 77 -B, i.e., for summoning of the record and photographs of Forensic Science Laboratory Field Unit Etawah, and for summoning of I.O. Narayan Singh Rana who had recorded the statement of Arvind Kumar Toma, Sudhir Pathak and Rameshwar Dayal, were that these witnesses were not examined in the trial by the prosecution and therefore, contradiction in their statements cannot be put to the I.O. who recorded their statements and Section 311, Cr.P.C. does not takes into its purview documentary evidences.