S.K. Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
(2.) The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that recall of this witness, who is the sole witness of fact in the trial, is a must and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer to recall the witness on the ground that the witnesses has sufficiently been cross examined is not tenable as it will cause serious injury to the cause of the defence. Learned counsel has taken me through ground number 8, which has been taken in the memo of revision. It is reproduced as under : "VIII. Because very relevant and cogent question could not have been examined with the alleged eye-witness namely Raj Kumar Agrahari, who has only appeared for examination on be- half of the prosecution as eye-witness. The some of the questions are given as below : (a) Whether the deceased was in any employment and capable to provide loan to the accused ? (b) Whether the informant knows about the type and nature of the firearm and he has correctly seen the arms used by Anuj accused ? As such type of several very important question could not have been examined with the alleged only eye-witness appeared on behalf of the prosecution."
(3.) So far as the second question is concerned it is a fact that the deceased met his death from a firearm shot. The witness has described the weapon of assault as a katta and therefore no clarification is called for.;