VINOD PRASAD,J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jitendra Kumar and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.
(2.) THE prosecution in its zeal to secure the conviction against the accused and to prove its case sometimes resorted to devices which is that of a persecutor and not that of a prosecutor. Many times the accused also with an idea of getting the acquittal succumbed to such tactics, which cannot be said to be fair. The present application has its genesis in the said methodology. S.T. No. 158/04, State v. Om Veer Singh and Ors., is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etawah. It is needless to say that both the rival parties wanted to get the said trial decided in their favour. I am not listing detail facts of the trial as the controversy is circumscribed within the periphery of legal submissions only. After Section 313, Cr.P.C. statements of the accused were recorded in the trial, accused filed five applications being application Nos. 75 - B, 76 -B, 77 -B, 80 -B and 66 -C before the trial Court. Application 75 -B was filed for summoning of the prosecution witness Constable 2159 Indrapal Singh who was a witness of recovery in the crime in question. Application 76 -B was for the requisitioning of the record dated 15 -7 -1999 of Forensic Science Laboratory Field Unit, Etawah, application No. 77 -B was for summoning the I.O. of C.B.C.I.D. Narayan Singh Rana because the statements of witnesses recorded by this I.O. contradicted the statements of the eye - witnesses P.W. 1 Dinesh Singh and P.W. 2 Mukesh Singh, application 65 -B was to recall P.W. 3, Dr. Balveer to prove the articles which were taken into custody by him at the time of conducting the autopsy on the dead -body of the deceased and application 66 -C was for conducting the spot inspection by the Court. All these applications were objected to by the prosecution but for last application 66 -C for spot inspection, which was not contested by the prosecution.
(3.) THE objection regarding the application 76 -B and 77 -B, i.e., for summoning of the record and photographs of Forensic Science Laboratory Field Unit Etawah, and for summoning of I.O. Narayan Singh Rana who had recorded the statement of Arvind Kumar Toma, Sudhir Pathak and Rameshwar Dayal, were that these witnesses were not examined in the trial by the prosecution and therefore, contradiction in their statements cannot be put to the I.O. who recorded their statements and Section 311, Cr.P.C. does not takes into its purview documentary evidences.;