- (1.) By the instant criminal revision petition under section 307/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code` hereinafter), the petitioners have assailed the order dt. 19.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (for short `the trial court` hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.25/2004, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under sections 311 and 91 of the Code and under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short `the Evidence Act' hereinafter).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. A crime report was lodged against the petitioners in the year 2001 and they are facing trial for the offences under sections 307, 376, 365, 342, 120-B I.P.C. The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced evidence and certain documents. The petitioners made statements under section 313 of the Code. After recording the statements of the petitioners under section 313 of the Code, an application under section 311 and 91 of the Code and section 165 of the Evidence Act was moved. By a well reasoned and detailed order, the trial court dismissed the application.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that after the statement of PW.7 was recorded by the trial court, some facts were discovered and therefore, the petitioners seek recalling of PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Doongar Chand for cross-examination. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Sub-Inspector Bahadur Singh and Madan Singh also conducted the investigation of crime report and, therefore, prosecution may be directed to produce these two witnesses. Lastly, it is contended that the court may put a question to PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Doongar Chand as also by calling and examining Sub-Inspector Bahadur Singh and Mandan Singh, who also conducted the investigation of crime report.;