K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.) The special leave is granted, and the appeal stands disposed of by this order.
(2.) The appellants-accused are facing trial for an offence under Ss. 302-34, I.P.C. and alternatively under Ss. 364-34, I.P.C. before the City Sessions Court, 13th Bench, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1 of November, 1987 (Session Case No. 5/87). The prosecution examined in all 34 witnesses. The last witness examined is the investigating officer (PW 34). His examination went on for a number of days and came to an end on March 16, 1989. On the next day that is, on March 17, 1989, the court examined the accused under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded their statements.
(3.) On March 21, 1989, the public prosecutor filed an application proposing some more questions to be put to the first appellant by way of re-examination under S. 313 of the Code. On the same day, the trial court by a considered order rejected that application. The relevant portion of that order runs as under: "I think the Ld.P.P. can argue all these points as the time of advancing arguments in this case and the accused need not be re-examined on this point under S. 313, Cr. P.C. The Ld.P.P. has also submitted that in question No. 6 and question No. 7 the word "these witnesses" should be replaced by the name of the witnesses. I think the names of the witnesses have already been put to the accused persons in the previous questions. So in the question No. 6 and question No. 7 the name of the witnesses need not be mentioned again. Then it has been pointed out that the question No. 4 in place of the words "you all", the question should be written as "Khurshed, Bhulu, Noor Alam and Tenea under your order.' I think it is implied. If other accused persons did anything at the order of one partcular accused it is implied that all the accused persons committed the mischief. So on this point also the accused need not be re-examined again. Lastly, it has been pointed out that in question No. 2 in place of PW 12 Abdullah Daweed the words "PW 7 Md. Mein" should be written. On perusal of the evidence on record I find PW 12 Abdullah Dawood is also a witness of the occurrence and so the question need not be corrected. Discussing the above circumstances, the petition filed by the prosecution this day for re-examination of the accused persons under S. 313, Cr.P.C. for further re-examination is rejected.";