- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 2-9-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Bijnor allowing the application moved by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 under Section 311 Cr. P. C. seeking to re-examine Rakesh Kumar and Virendra Singh in S. T. No. 220 of 2002, State v. Deepak and Ors. , under Sections 302/324 IPC, police station Haldaur, District Bijnor.
(2.) THE revisionist Deepak alongwith two other co-accused Chandu and Sumer had been arrayed as accused in the FIR dated 18-5-2001, which alleged that the incident had taken place on 18-5-2001 at about 9 p. m. where the brother of the informant Madan was murdered by the accused persons including the revisionist. THE role of the revisionist was to give a knife blow on the chest of the deceased while the other co-accused Chandu and Sumer were assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased at the time of incident. However, when the witnesses appeared in Court, they turned hostile. An application Ext. Kha 85, which contained a copy of a report in case No. 467 C of 2003 under Sections 452/504/506 IPC lodged at police station Haldaur, which alleged that the accused Sumer and Chandu (who have been granted bail in the present case) armed with country made pistols had intimidated and threatened the witness Rakesh Kumar on 25-7-2003 at 6 p. m. and had exerted pressure on them to turn hostile in the murder case. It was on account of this threat, that the witnesses could not give the true version in the Court because there was such a great terror of the accused persons. On account of this application and the FIR in case crime No. 467 C of 2003, the impugned order had been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. 2, Bijnor.
(3.) THE principal ground for challenging the impugned order was that the application had been moved by O. P. No. 2 on 25-8-2004, i. e. after one year of the examination of the witnesses PW. 1 Rakesh and P. W. 2 Virendra and it was moved belatedly after the other witnesses had been examined just prior to the recording of 313 Cr. P. C. statement of the accused and that no good ground for allowing the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. after such a long lapse of time. I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The ends of justice are higher than the mere ends of law, and it is for the Courts to ensure that justice is not made hostage to the money or muscle power of accused persons who after committing crimes are determined to sabotage their trials and to prevent them from reaching their culmination. The time factor in moving the application for re- examination of the witnesses who had become hostile is also not all-important, as it may have taken time for the witnesses to regain confidence and to overcome their fear of the accused for deposing about the true version in Court.;