Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

• Legal Principle on Section 233(3) Cr.P.C.: The provisions of Section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be interpreted to compel the attendance of a prosecution witness who has already been examined, cross-examined, and discharged, in order to juxtapose them as a defence witness (DW). (!) (!) (!)
• Invalidity of Juxtaposing Prosecution Witnesses as Defence Witnesses: There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows witnesses already examined as prosecution witnesses (PWs) to be re-examined as defence witnesses (DWs) merely by filing an affidavit. This specific situation was not contemplated by the law. (!) (!) (!)
• Defeating the Ends of Justice: When a petition is frivolous or vexatious, a Judge has the discretionary power to refuse relief if the application is made for the purpose of vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. In this case, allowing the witnesses to be re-examined as defence witnesses after their initial testimony was rejected as an attempt to defeat the ends of justice. (!) (!)
• Concocted Evidence and Perjury: The subsequent statements given by the witnesses as defence witnesses were deemed to be "well an after thought" and concocted. Since these witnesses were close relatives or friends of the deceased, there was no logical reason for them to depose falsely against the accused. They are liable for prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence (perjury). (!) (!) (!)
• Restoration of Conviction: The impugned judgment of the High Court, which acquitted the respondent based on the re-examined testimony of the prosecution witnesses, is set aside. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is restored. (!) (!)
• Procedural History and Timeline: The witnesses initially gave statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in 1989, testified as prosecution witnesses in 1990, filed affidavits claiming coercion in 1994, and were allowed to be re-examined as defence witnesses in 1995. The Supreme Court noted the lack of complaint during the intervening years and the rejection of the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application in 1994. (!) (!) (!) (!)