Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) CHALLENGED in this revision application is to the order dated 29.4.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), for recording the restatement of the accused persons on the point of identification under Section 313 of the Code, has been allowed. At the instance of Officer -in -Charge of Senha Police Station, the aforesaid case bearing Senha P.S. Case No. 50 of 2011 was instituted with the allegation that while the informant had gone on patrolling with Police Officers there was a series of blast and firing upon police team and in the said incidence several policemen sustained injuries and also died. The informant and other Police personnel could identify the accused persons who were involved in the alleged occurrence.
(2.) IT appears from the record that after investigation the police submitted the charge -sheet against two petitioners and other accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/326/324/353/427/120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and also under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After conclusion of evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code on 29.1.2015. Thereafter, the defence concluded his argument and taken a plea that since the prosecution has not put any question from the accused persons on the point of identification, circumstances cannot be used against the accused persons and prejudice or miscarriage of justice had occasioned for not putting question to the accused. After the above statement, a petition under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the prosecution with prayer to allow the prosecution to re -record the statement of the co -accused persons under Section 313 of the Code on the ground that the question relating to identification was inadvertently not placed before the accused persons during his statement though it was the duty of the court to put specific question. The court below after hearing both the parties allowed the petition and directed that in the interest of justice it is desirable to put question to the accused and re -record the statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code on the point of identification. Hence, this revision, by the petitioners, who are accused in the court below. Mr. Jitendra Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that once an accused is examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, he cannot be re -examined time and again on the pretext that certain questions have not been put to them. It was also submitted that the petition filed by the prosecution in the court below was a step to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case and there is no justification to record their restatement. It was also submitted that it is old case of 2011, so a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and in any event or even under equity there should not be any re -examination of the accused. It was also submitted that allowing the petition by the court below is a denial of fundamental right of fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) CONTRARY to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that the provision of Section 313 of the Code empowers the court to re -examine the accused after evidence for the prosecution is concluded and the object behind the examination is to afford the accused an opportunity of explaining circumstances which may tend to incriminate him.;