ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AAG for the State/respondent.

(2.) THE revisionist approached the trial Court for obtaining the presence of the prosecution witnesses already examined in the trial, to enable him to contradict them with their previous statements recorded by Angrez Singh, DSP (Crime) and S.P. (Crime), Haryana.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists submits that as a matter of fact, the prosecution witness was in the witness -box and was being examined when this application was moved. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides rejected the application, holding that the accused has not been able to satisfy the Court that any previous statements of these witnesses existed and that they are contradictory to the statements of these witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.