- (1.) B. A. Zaidi, J. In proceedings (S. T. No. 125 of 2006) State v. Ram Autar and Anr. , under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor P. W. 1 informant Kunwar Pal and his son P. W. 2 Anurag have been summoned. Both have turned hostile and were cross-examined by Counsel for the State.
(2.) BOTH the witnesses have applied to the Court for being re- examined to give evidence in favour of the accused as they had earlier given statements under duress. Since Gaurav, son of informant (P. W. 1) was kidnapped by the relatives of the accused, the accused had assured them, that Gaurav will be returned, if they give evidence in their favour in the Court, and that is why, they gave evidence in their favour in the Court. Since Gaurav has not been released and accused have resiled from their undertaking, they want to bring correct facts before the Court. The Court allowed the application (vide order dated 1-6-2007) and that is why the present accused have come here in revision.
(3.) I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, Advocate for revisionists and Sri S. D. Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Counsel for the revisionist and Counsel for the State have referred the following case law, which are as follows: For the revisionists (1) Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. v. State of W. B. and Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 503 (SC ). (2) Mishrilal and Ors. v. State of M. P. and Ors. , 2005 (2) JIC 999 (SC) : (2005) 10 S. C. C. 701. For State U. T. of Dadra and Haveli and Anr. v. Fatehsinh Mohan Singh Chauhan, 2006 (3) JIC 75 (SC) : UP Crlr 2006 (11) 715.;