RAVI KAPAHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek to quash order dated 30 -08 -2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has allowed the application of the prosecution for examining of three witnesses, namely, Ram Krishan, Kasturi Lal and Rakesh Kumar, father, brother and cousin of the deceased.

(2.) THE petitioners are facing trial for the alleged commission of offences under section 302/148/149/323 RPC and 4/27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution has cited 31 witnesses in the challan including six alleged eye -witnesses. The prosecution took three years to produce the evidence. On 3.8.2001 the prosecution evidence was closed on the statement of the APR and file directed to come up on 18.8.2001 for recording the statements of the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. On this date, the prosecution filed an application invoking section 540 Cr.P.C for summoning three more witnesses named above, as they have also seen the occurrence. The ground taken before the trial court is that these witnesses were available and willing to get their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but the investigating officer has not recorded their statements and cited them in the challan as eyewitnesses. Learned trial court has allowed the application.

(3.) PETITIONERS seek to quash impugned order on the ground that the application has been moved with oblique motive to delay the trial and no plausible reasons have been assigned for moving the application before the trial court, after closure of the evidence. The fact that these witnesses have also seen the occurrence was known to the prosecution, they should have recorded their statements and if the statements have not been recorded, the prosecution should have approached the trial court at the earlier stage of the trial.