PHUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPLY of Shamsher Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Fatehabad, on behalf of respondent no. 1 filed in court is taken on record. One of the summoned prosecution witness has approached this court impugning the order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by him for recording his statement was rejected and an application filed by the Public Prosecutor for not examining the petitioner as one of the prosecution witness was accepted on the ground that he had been won over by the accused.

(2.) AT the time of issuance of notice of motion on 3.11.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that number of witnesses were cited in the challan presented in the court. The petitioner was one of them being an independent eye witness. When the evidence of the prosecution started on 28.9.2011, the petitioner had also been summoned to appear as a witness. On that day the prosecution filed an application claiming that the petitioner be left out from the list of witnesses as he had been won over by the accused. The petitioner finding that the other witnesses had been won over by the accused, filed application praying that he being an eye witness, who has been summoned by the court, should be examined as prosecution witness. Both the applications were considered by the learned court below. The application of the petitioner was rejected and the application of the public prosecutor was accepted.