CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Subedar Singh vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 April 2001 · Citation: (2001) 04 AHC CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ratanakar Dash, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1836 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 145 words

Ratnakar Dash, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.T Siddiqui, Counsel for the informant.

2.

The material eyewitness was not produced by the prosecution for crossex, animation and feeling aggrieved thereby the applicant facing charge under Section 302 LP.C and other allied offences, has approached this Court by riling the present application seeking Court''s intervention. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution cannot be compelled by the Court to examine any particular witness if that witness is gained over and will not support the prosecution version. It is the duty of the prosecution to decide what witnesses it should be examined. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hukum Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) JIC 213, supports my view.

3.

The criminal Miscellaneous Application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.