LAWS(ORI)-1999-5-14

BRAJA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On May 14, 1999
Braja Nayak Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Khurda in T.R. No. 8/95 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure to summon two of the witnesses.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows:

(3.) KEEPING in view the above position of law as laid down in various cases noted above by the Apex Court as well as this Court; it is to be considered whether the trial Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 311 of the Code in a sound and judicious manner. In this context, reference may also be made to the principle 11 laid down in, (1995) 8 OCR 242 Sri Kishore Chandra Mohapatra v. I. Panchanan Singh and Ors., wherein it has been held that the Court i would not be bound to issue summons to witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure unless it is satisfied that the evidence will be very material. It is noticed from the impugned order that the trial Court refused to summon the witnesses as it found that the examination of the said two witnesses is not necessary for the just decision of the case. Here it may be mentioned that the Petitioner is the informant in this case. It is found that he has neither named the witnesses in the FIR nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 , Code of Criminal Procedure None of the witnesses examined by the police during investigation also named the said two people to have seen the occurrence. It also does not appear from the record and even from the evidence adduced by the Petitioner in the trial Court that the Investigating Officer is in any way hostile towards him or was influenced by the accused persons. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the two witnesses whom the Petitioner seeks to examined, are material witnesses. It is also noticed that the trial Court assigning ground reasons, has rejected the petition. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the same.