Bachchoo Singh vs State of U.P.

S.C. Agarwal, J.—The instant revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Aligarh in S.T. No. 973 of 2007 whereby an application under section 311 Cr. P.C. moved by the prosecution was allowed and one Rakesh was summoned as a witness.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution have turned hostile. Rakesh was not named in the F.I.R. or in the chargesheet as an eyewitness. He was not interrogated by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P.C. and by calling such person as a witness Amounts to filing the lacuna in the proseajtioh case, which should not be allowed.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the F.l.R. was lodged at the instance of the deceased and bears the thumb impression of the deceased. It was mentioned in the G.D., whereby the case was registered at the police station, that Rakesh was present at the police station at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged. It was also mentioned that the F.I.R. was presented at the police station by father of Rakesh.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the F.I.R. was scribed at the dictation of the deceased and it bears the thumb impression of the deceased. The F.I.R. was taken to the police station by Rakesh and his father, whose presence is mentioned in the G.D. of the police station.

In these circumstances, Rakesh appears to be a material witness and his testimony may be important for just decision of the case.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order summoning Rakesh under section 311 Cr.P.C. The Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.