- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 371 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Court below for examining the witnesses named by the informant in her evidence. The petitioner is facing the trial in the Court below for the offence under Sections 498A , 341, 323/ 34 I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 371 of 2007, which was instituted on the basis of the written information given before the police by the opposite party No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner, about the cruelty and torture meted to her for the demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. It appears from the impugned order that in course of trial, all the witnesses were examined except the I.O., when an application was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for examining five witnesses who have been named in the deposition of the informant. The Court below by the impugned order dated 4.4.2011 has allowed the prosecution to examine those witnesses also. Admittedly, these witnesses were not named in the charge-sheet, nor their statements were recorded by the police during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, as it shall vitally prejudice the defence of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the witnesses who were ordered to be examined, have not been named in the charge-sheet submitted by the police and their statements were never recorded by the police during the investigation. It is further submitted that these witnesses have only been named by the informant in her evidence, as they belonged to her family, as the other witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case and as such, the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the informant is the victim in this case, and has stated that in her evidence, that those five witnesses have also seen the occurrence and accordingly, their examination is necessary for just decision in the case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. After having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that admittedly, the witnesses named by the informant in her evidence were not named in the charge-sheet and their statements were not recorded by the police during the investigation. These witnesses have been named by the informant in her evidence, as the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, as is apparent from the impugned order itself.;