BRIJ LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. L. Loomba, J. The petitioners in this writ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are facing their trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1985, State v. Brij Lal and others in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Barabanki. The main victim of the crime was Swami Dayal, Advocate of Barabanki. Three other persons, namely, Deoki Nandan Pandey, Mata Prasad and Ram Tirath were said to have received injuries in this occurrence. Besides these three injured, seven more persons were named in the first infor mation report as eye- witnesses. The prosecution examined one injured, namely, Deoki Nandan Pandey and another eye- witness, namely, Maharaj Bali and closed its evidence.

(2.) THE grievance of the accused petitioners, it appears, was that the prosecution intentionally and without any justifiable reason withheld from being examined two injured persons at the trial and the same being material witnesses ought to hive been examined. THE Public Prosecutor, it appears, sought discharge of the named witnesses en the ground of their having been won over by the accused persons. This application was allowed and the other named witnesses were discharged. THE accused persons then moved application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the prayer that the two injured witnesses, namely, Ram Tirath and Mata Prasad may be examined by the Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as Conrt witnesses. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order, dated 5- 1-1988 and it is this order which is under challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude indciates that the prayer of the accused persons was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the person who had received grievous injured has already been examined and that injured Mata Prasad complained of pain only while the third injured person, namely, Ram Tirath had sustained only one simple abraded contusion and that these two injured persons had been working in the nearby fields and had actually arrived at the last stage of the incident and being residents of the village of the accused persons, they had been won over by the accused. From the side of the accused petitioners it is denied that these two injured persons had, in any way, been won over by the accused.