1. The petitioner is the accused No 1 in S.C. No.1485 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VII Thriuvanathapuram.

2. Trial has commenced and as many as 77 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. The incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 (1)(b) and the accused were asked to enter upon their defence. An application was thereafter filed for compelling the attendance of 29 persons to prove the defence version. The said application was partly allowed and summons were ordered to be issued to CW1 to CW5, CW7 , CW 8 and CW 27 in the list. Challenging the refusal to issue summons to the rest of the witnesses, the instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Heard Sri B. Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel Appearing for the Petitioner as well as Sri K.V. Sohan, the learned State Attorney.

4. The learned Senior counsel would at the outset itself submit that a fair trial is the main object of criminal jurisprudence and it includes the grant of a fair and sufficient opportunity to the accused to prove his case as well. Adducing evidence in support of the defense version is a valuable right and the Courts are to ensure that the said right is protected in letter and spirit. Referring to the facts of the instant case, it is submitted that at the time of registration of the FIR and thereafter for quite some time, the case of the investigating agency was that the murder was perpetrated by a group of masked assailants in connection with factional fight between two rival gangs. The news reports which had appeared in various leading dailies, on the same day and on the next day of the incident, according to the learned Counsel, flashed the news that masked assailants had attacked the deceased by reaching the place of incident in bikes, the registration numbers of which were shielded from public view. The said reports is at variance with the present prosecution case as per the charge. This would reveal that the prosecution had suppressed the genesis and manner of the incident and investigation in the final report before court. When witnesses were cross examined, specific questions were put as to whether a different version had appeared in the newspapers, which they had emphatically denied . According to the witnesses, they were not in the habit of reading newspapers or viewing television channels. It was in the said circumstances that the defence had filed a schedule of witnesses, numbering 28, with the objective of proving the news reports which appeared in the prominent dailies both in vernacular and English language, published immediately and on the following day of the alleged occurrence. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the photographs of accused numbers 1 to 4 had appeared in some of the dailies after the incident. The said accused were later identified by witnesses during the test identification parade which was held held weeks after the photograph had appeared in the News Papers. According to him, only by examining the reporter and the newspaper editor will the petitioner be able to establish the truth of the contents of the report and the frailty of the prosecution evidence relating to the Test Identification could be brought to the notice of the Court. According to the learned counsel the intention of the defence was to bring to the notice of the Court the case of the prosecution was different at the early stages and that they had shaped a different version later to the prejudice of the accused.

5. Referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that the news item without further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. Expatiating further on this aspect, it is contended that the attempt of the defence was to prove the news paper reports was in tune with the mode approved by the Apex Court as well as this Court. Strongly attacking the observat