HEERALAL ALIAS NIMMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision the applicant calls in question the legal validity of the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 64/92, whereby he has refused to entertain an application filed u/S. 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning of certain witnesses.

(2.) The fact situation as has been un-curtained from the petition is that the accused/applicant is facing the trial for an offence u/S. 302 of I.P.C. It has been putforth that the prosecution had mentioned Dr. Rajnish Choubey, Dr. Satish Kadam Raje @ Rajesh S/o Rampyare Kumasariya and Pannalal S/o Parsadi Choudhary as chargesheet witnesses but they were not examined by the prosecution. It has also been stated that one R.N. Singh, Asstt. Sub-Inspector posted at the relevant time at Ghansour, was also an essential witness for unfolding the truth. Application was filed for examining these witnesses by issuing appropriate direction u/S. 311 of Cr.P.C. The said petition was orally resisted by the prosecution as the learned counsel for the prosecution did not intend to file any written objection.

(3.) The learned trial Judge observed as the prosecution has closed its case and does not intend to examine these witnesses and as all main witnesses have been examined, it was not necessary to summon the witnesses as prayed for by the accused. Recording such reasons the Court below rejected the application. The same is the cause of grievance of the present revisionist.