ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who have been facing their trial on a charge under sections 304/34 IPC before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track 4th Court at Barasat, North 24 -Parganas, after argument was over, moved an application invoking section 311 CrPC praying for re -examination of the Investigating Officer of the case, PW/6 on recall. Such prayer was rejected, hence this criminal revision.
(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted before the Trial Court, the prayer was for reexamination of the Investigating Officer of the case PW/6, with reference to the evidence of PW/1, PW/2, PW/8, PW/9, PW/10 and PW/11, but now such prayer is not pressed as regards to the PW/1, PW/9 and PW/11 and be restricted to PW/2, PW/8 and PW/10.
(3.) HE further submitted both the PW/9 and PW/10 were although charge -sheeted witnesses, but they were examined on January 16, 2013, after the examination of the accused under section 313 CrPC was over, the defence witness was examined and the matter was fixed for argument. But somehow or other, the defence Counsel missed to cross -examine them on some very material points. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to annexure -P3 to this criminal revisional application and submitted as to why the examination of Investigating Officer of the case PW/6 was sought for, with reference to the statement made to him during investigation by the PW/2, PW/8 and PW/10 was categorically noted therein. On the other hand, Learned Junior Government Advocate vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the aforesaid application under section 311 CrPC was moved at a stage when after completion of argument, the date was fixed for delivery of the judgment. He further contended that the none of the ground, on which the re -examination of the Investigating Officer of the case, was made, is at all tenable and this application is liable to be dismissed.;