MARIAMUN NESSA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts giving rise to the present revision may, in brief, be set out as follows :

(2.) I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. V. S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Dr. Ahmed has submitted that without, first, examining all the material witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the said two daughters of the deceased to be examined as witnesses, particularly, when their names had not appeared in the charge-sheet. In such circumstances, contends Dr. Ahmed, calling of the said two persons as witnesses by the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be allowed to stand good on record, for, their examination, according to Dr. Ahmed, would cause serious prejudice to the accused. This apart, according to Dr. Ahmed, there was no material for the learned trial Court to conclude that the examination of the said two daughters of the deceased was essential for a just decision of the case. Support for the submissions, so made, is sought to be derived by Dr. Ahmed from the decisions in Jokhan Jha Vs. Ram Saran Jha and Ors. reported in 1967 Cri. LJ 1444, Munga Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 202), Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374, Smt. Santosh Kumari and Ors. Vs. State, reported in 1973 Cri. LJ. 1651, and R. Srinivasan and Ors. Vs. G. Shanmugha Vadivu, reported in 1984 Cri. LJ. 377.