NAROTTAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and parties were heard at the stage of admission.

(2.) Heard. Besides others, the prosecution had cited Girraj Prasad, Rameshwar, Jagdish, Ram Swaroop Basant Kumar, Yogendra Kumar and Amar Singh as prosecution witnesses in the calender of witnesses filed along with the police report. At the trial, the prosecution did not like to examine those witnesses. The trial was completed and the accused were also examined under section 313 Crimial P.C. Thereafter, the prosecution sought permission to examine one Ram Singh in order to get the report of the FS.L exhibited. His statement was recorded. The accused applicants then requested the court to summon the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, who had been dropped by the prosecution at that time. Learned trial court, dismissed their application holding that the summoning of the aforesaid witnesses at the instance of the accused was not in the interest of justice.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that an accused person may summon a witness who has been cited by the prosecution as a witness but has been dropped at the trial of the accused as his own witness. The contention advanced by the learned counsel is correct. The accused has a right to produce any of the prosecution witnesses, who is not examined by the prosecution at his trial, as his witness in his defence. If an accused wants that a particular witness who has though been named by the prosecution in the list of witnesses filed by it, be examined as his witness on his request then, certainly the Court should allow such prayer.