1. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran in Sessions Case No.1/2006 whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application dated 15.12.2008 filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking summoning of two eye witnesses of the incident dated 14.9.2005 namely Ramdayal and Raju Aerwal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the accused.

3. The brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner lodged a written report Exhibit P.28 on 15.9.2005 at about 10 a.m. at Police Station Anta, which reads as under:-

"fuosnu gS fd dy fnukad 14-9-05 dks 'kke lk<+s vkB ukS cts djhcu esjk yM+dk jktsUnz dqekj o mlds lkFk fot; mQZ js.kq iq= eksrhyky tkV] fuoklh cewfy;k ekrkth o gsejkt iq= cyjke /kkdM+ fuoklh cewfy;k ekrkth] rhuksa eksVjlkbZfdy vkjts 28 2,e 4588 lqtqdh MhyDl lqij ij edku ls cSBdj xkao cewfy;k ekrkth ls vUrk dh rjQ jokuk gksrs gq, eSaus ns[kk Fkk o FkksM+h nsj ckn gsejkt /kkdM+ rks gkFk eqag /kksus mrj x;k crk;k] nsj jkr rd ugha esjk yM+dk ugha vk;k rks eSaus mldh rkyk'k djh ,oa Fkkus esa fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ Fkh rc ls gh eSa o esjs ifjokj okys o xkao okys ryk'k djrs jgsA vkt lqcg djhcu 7 cts eq>s tqxkM eSa cSBdj x;s O;fDr;ksa us crk;k fd dy jkf= dks geus rqEgkjs yM+ds jktsUnz dks ugj cUtkjh ukys ij igqaps rks ogka ij [kwu ds fu'kku utj vk;s o ?klhVus ds fu'kku Hkh utj vk;sA esjs lkFk nqyhpUnz] jetku] dSyk'k] jyohjflag] d'".kdqekj] jkrpUnz jSxj us ikuh esa dwn dj rkyk'k fd;k rks jktsUnz dh yk'k feyh] ftldks ckgj fudkyk o ge lcus ns[kk fd mlds 'kjhj ij txg&txg pkdw ds fu'kku o pksaVs gSa yk'k [kwu ds Bhd lkeus ikuh esa fudyh eq>s iwoZ 'kadk gS fd esjs iq= jktsUnz dh gR;k fot; mQZ js.kq iq= eksrhyky tkV fuoklh cewfy;k ekrkth us iqjkuh jaft'k dks ysdj pkdqvksa ls xksndj gR;k dj ugj esa Mky nh gSA rFkk eksVjlkbZfdy Hkh ugha feyh gS fjiksVZ dks vk;k gwa dk;Zokgh dh tkosA"

4. It is relevant to mention that before lodging Exhibit P.28, the petitioner had lodged the missing report in the mid-night.

5. FIR No.290/05 was registered and after investigation of the matter, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused Vijay alias Renu.The case was committed to the court of Sessions on 21.12.2005 wherein the charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was read over to the accused on 16.1.2006, which was denied and the matter was posted for prosecution evidence consecutively for four dates i.e. 20.2.2006 to 23.2.2006 and four witnesses on each date i.e. 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12 and 13 to 16, were summoned by way of bailable warrants.

6. However, the witness no.1 shown in the charge-sheet, is the present petitioner Prabhu Lal, who happens to be the father of the deceased, but did not appear for his evidence despite service of bailable warrants. Ultimately he had to be summoned by way of arrest warrant and could only be examined on 27.11.2007 as PW-23, but his cross examination was completed on 12.6.2008. The order sheets of the case show that during the said seven months i.e. 27.11.2007 to 9.6.2008 also he abstained many a times and service could not be affected despite issuance of process again and again and at last he came through bailable warrants on 12.6.2008 and was examined as a last witness. The matter thereafter was posted for statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and the matter was posted for defence, which remained at that stage on 27.8.2008, 4.9.2008, 13.10.2008, 7.11.2008 and on 18.11.2008 conditional order was passed that if the accused would not produce his defence, the final arguments will be heard on 15.12.2008.

8. Meanwhile the application under Section 319 of the Code filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on 27.8.2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed application under Section 311 of the Code on 15.12.