RAM AKBAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist who is under going trial for an offence under Section 364-A, I.P.C. against the order dated 3.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6 Deoria in Session Trial No. 111 of 1998 rejecting his application moved by him under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for summoning the prosecution witness P.W.-2 Dilip Kumar for reexamination.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that filing of the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. was necessitated for the reason that during the cross- examination of P.W.-2 Dilip Kumar the question as to how he identified the accused which is very essential for fair decision of the case as the incident is alleged to have taken place at night and no source of light was shown at the place of occurrence and it was not possible for the witness to have identified the revisionist, could not be asked.