AWUNGSHI NINGLUMSHANG Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. K Neeru, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. H. Samarjeet, learned additional PP for the State.

(2.) The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.04.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West in Cril No. 14 of 2017 by which the application of the Prosecution filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C for allowing to examine an additional witness who was not earlier listed in the charge sheet was allowed.

(3.) Before, we proceed with this matter, it may be appropriate to refer to some basic facts as may be relevant for deciding in this petition. A trial is going on against the petitioner and another accused (proforma respondent no. 2) in connection with the charge for committing offence under Section 366-A read with 34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. After the framing of charge against the accused including the petitioner, a supplementary charge sheet was also submitted. The trial commenced thereafter and the Prosecution examined as many as 14Prosecution witnesses by 28th October, 2016. Thereafter, on 3.2.2017, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for allowing to examine one witness namely, Loitongbam Bilashini Chanu, Scientific Officer, Mobile Forensic Unit, Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur, Pangei stating that due to bonafide mistake, the IO of the case had failed to mention one important witness, the above named person, who had collected important exhibits during the time of investigation of the case. The petitioner filed objection to the said application contending that the name of the aforesaid witness was never mentioned by the I.O. of the case in the chargesheet as well as in her evidence. The involvement of the witness was also never mentioned in the case. It was further stated that granting this prayer would amount to allowing the Prosecution to fill up its lacuna which would cause prejudice to the accused. The application was heard and disposed of by the impugned order dated 29.04.2017. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as follows:-