TIRPAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of a portion of the order dated 30/3/2001 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara, in S.Tr, No. 375/98 whereby the application filed by the accused persons petitioners dated 29/3/2001 to examine the witnesses shown as prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet and other official witnesses as Court witnesses has been rejected.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that on the basis of a report given by, one Hare Kishore Singh, Udwantpur P.S. Case No. 62/98, dated 6/4/1998 under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and in the charge-sheet the names of the witnesses were also given which included Krishna Singh. Ramji Singh, Rambalak Yadav Jivnandan Singh and Rambadan Yadav. During the course of trial the prosecution did not examine the aforesaid witnesses but had examined other witnesses. After the close of the evidence of the prosecution the petitioners filed an application on 29/3/2001 for examination of the aforesaid witnesses as Court witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In the said application further prayer was made to examine K.D. Kumar. Inspector of Police, Bhim Mahto, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had supervised the case for examination as Court witnesses. The Sessions Judge by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioners observing that Sub-Inspector of Police, K.D. Kumar and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Bhim Mahto had nothing to do with the investigation and as such prayer made by the petitioners to examine them as Court witnesses is absolutely misconceived. The Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that there is no supervision note of the Dy. S.P. and his examination under Section 311 of the Code is not warranted. The Sessions Judge further observed, that it is not the duty of the Court to collect the evidence for the defence and examine the witnesses as Court witnesses and if the petitioners are so advised they may examine them as defence witnesses.

(3.) It is relevant to state that Mr. Baksi S.R.P. Sinha has filed power on behalf of the State and when he wanted to make submission opposing the prayer of the petitioners Mr. Madhup has taken a stand that in the present case the petitioners are being prosecuted by the State and as such informant cannot be allowed to be represented by any other counsel excepting Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor to oppose the prayer made by the petitioners.