- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court, Mirzapur, in S. T. No. 320 of 2000, State v. Ram Ji, under Section 302 IPC, police station Chilh, district Mirzapur, by which the application of the revisionist-accused for summoning Smt. Israwati, Ashish and Smt. Manorma and doctor as prosecution witness was rejected on the ground that the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine any witness.
(2.) HEARD Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. The revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The impugned order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court, Mirzapur, shows that it is a murder case in which 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. When the statement of 10th witness Kailash Srivastava was over, the accused moved an application on 1-9-2003 to summon and examine Ashish, Smt. Israwati, Smt. Manorma and the doctor as prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that the prayer was not being made by the State Counsel of the Court because the State Counsel had examined the witnesses and the prosecution does not want to examine more witnesses on this point. Thus in this revision the point of law involved is as to whether prosecution can be compelled to examine more witness on which it has examined some witnesses and in its opinion there is no need to examine more witnesses or to multiply the number of the witnesses.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1999 Cri. LJ 1955, Govind Ram v. State of U. P. and others, in which it has been held by this Court that the Court is duty bound to summon material witnesses and non-examination of material witness is improper. Another ruling cited by the revisionist is 2001 (1) JIC 279 (All) : 2000 (41) ACC 644, Imamuddin and others v. State of U. P. , in which it has been held by this Court that a person was witness of the fact in respect of occurrence, dying declaration and preparation of site plan, he was a material witness to be summoned and examined. The revisionist has also relied on 1998 (1) JIC 1098 (All) : 1998 (37) ACC 573, Lakshmi Shanker v. State of U. P. , in which it has been held by this Court that if it appears to be essential for just decision of the case, Court is duty bound to examine such witness to arrive at the truth and do justice between the parties.;