P.C.PHUKAN, J. - (1.) This is a revision directed against the order dated 21.1.98 passed by the learned Sessions judge at Barpeta passed in Sessions case No. 20 of 1995.
(2.) The facts leading to the revision may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner appeared before the Court of Session at Barpeta in response to summons issued in connection with the Sessions case No. 20/95 as a witness on 21.1. 98. The deposition of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on the same day. The petitioner was examined by the Public prosecutor and cross-examined by the defence. The learned Sessions Judge himself put one question whether the petitioner liked to say anything more as to how and why the murder had taken place. The petitioner replied that he had nothing more to add. Hearing this reply the learned Sessions Judge recorded his remarks as follows presumably under Section 280 Cr. P. C. "Court demeanour. It appears that the witness has suppressed the real story behind the murder.The conduct of the witness for not eqnuiring about the incident is also reprehensible. The witness is a teacher by profession, he knew both the parties very well from before, he remained at the place of occurrence for about two hours, visited the house of the deceased the very next day and also met several persons including some prime witnesses. Despite this fact the witness did not try to find out the reason for the murder. Hence, the performance of the witness was unsatisfactory and condemnable."
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 21.1.98 directed as under- "Let a copy of deposition of the witness be forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati and also to the Secretary, Education for recording the demeanour of the witness in his confidential Report and also for taking appropriate administrative action.";