Hemant Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by himorderashok kumar tiwari, j.1. learned trial court has summoned some witnesses under section 311 of code of criminal procedure. learned trial court has not committed any error much less the jurisdictional error or any irregularity much less any material irregularity in summoning the witnesses. under section 311 of criminal procedure code, court has power to call any witness if his evidence appears it to be essential to the just decision of the case.2. learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the witness has been called on a belated stage and the case is pending for a long time, therefore, the order of summoning the witnesses be quashed.3. the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant can not be accepted as the court can summon any witness or witnesses under section 311 of code of criminal procedure at any stage of the trial before the judgment is delivered. therefore, the order of the trial court can not be said to be illegal or irregular. the case is pending for a long time is also not a valid ground to quash the order of summoning of witnesses.4. the revision is thus devoid of any merit. hence, it is dismissed, however, with the observation that the learned trial court shall try to decide the case in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Learned Trial Court has summoned some witnesses under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error much less the jurisdictional error or any irregularity much less any material irregularity in summoning the witnesses. Under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code, Court has power to call any witness if his evidence appears it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the witness has been called on a belated stage and the case is pending for a long time, therefore, the order of summoning the witnesses be quashed.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant can not be accepted as the Court can summon any witness or witnesses under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure at any stage of the trial before the judgment is delivered. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court can not be said to be illegal or irregular. The case is pending for a long time is also not a valid ground to quash the order of summoning of witnesses.

4. The revision is thus devoid of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed, however, with the observation that the learned Trial Court shall try to decide the case in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.