SAURAV KUMAR GOGOI Vs. UPEN CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, under Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioner, who is an accused in Sessions Case No. 272 (CH)/2012, has challenged the order, dated 23.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, whereby the complainant's application, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for examination of additional witnesses was allowed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Counsel, appearing for the private respondent.

(3.) DURING the trial, all the cited (seventeen) prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the allegations, brought against him. Out of 17 (seventeen) witnesses, examined by the prosecution, 5 (five) witnesses i.e. PW -4, PW - 6, PW -7, PW -9 and PW -12, were declared hostile and cross -examined by the prosecution. However, from their cross -examination, nothing incriminating could be elicited against the petitioner. As revealed from the evidence of the witnesses (certified copies of depositions produced), it appears that none of the said witnesses directly implicated the accused person with the death of the deceased. Of course, PW -3 stated that he was told by Samsul Hoque (PW -5) and Mridul Handique (PW -4) that a fight had taken place between the deceased and the accused. But, both PW -4 and PW -5 refused to support the said evidence of PW -3.