Honble GARG, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 25.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Churu in Sessions Case No. 27/96 by which he accepted the application dated 2.9.1997 filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and ordered for recalling of PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit.

(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-

The accused petitioners were facing trial for the offence under Ss. 307, 326/34, 324 IPC etc.

It may be stated here that in this case, occurrence took place on 30.7.1994 and on 9.9.1994, challan for the offence under sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC was filed by the police against the accused petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Taranagar District Churu, for where the case was committed to the Court of Session on 23.9.1994. The charges from the offence under sections 307/34, 326/34 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused petitioners on 20.1.1996. The charges were read and explained to the accused petitioners. They denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the statement of PW 1 Dr. Shankar Singh was recorded on 27.6.1996. The statements of PW2 Manoj Kumar and PW 3 Dr. B.L. Gaur were recorded on 1.8.1996.The statements of PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit, PW 5 Rameshwar, PW 6 Bhanwarlal, PW 7 Pannaram and PW 8 Sheoram were recorded on 2.9.1996. The statements of PW 9 Rajnarayan and PW 10 Rawatram were recorded on 23.9.1996. The statements of PW 11 Govindram and PW 12 Doongarmal were recorded on 26.11.1996. The statements of PW 13 Arjunram and PW 14 Rajiram were recorded on 1.4.1997. The statements of PW 15 Danaram and PW 16 Rajendra were recorded on 4.8.1997 and the statement of PW 17 Jeetaram was recorded on 19.8.1997 and thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. Thereafter, the statements of the accused petitioners under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 30.8.1997 and the case was ordered to be listed for recording evidence of the defence and defence evidence was recorded on 2.9.1997 and thereafter, the case was ordered to be listed for final arguments on 5.9.1997.

After recording defence evidence on 2.9.1997, the present application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu) for recalling PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit on the ground that PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit has wrongly mentioned ring finger in place of little finger in the x-ray plate cover Ex.P/6A pertaining to PW 2 Manoj Kumar and because of this mistake committed by PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit, PW 3 Dr.B.L. Gaur also mentioned in his report Ex.P/2 ring finger, though there was fracture of little finger of PW 2 Manoj Kumar. Thereafter, it was prayed that PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit be recalled so that this mistake can be rectified.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu) vide his order dated 25.10.1997 allowed the application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. by the learned APP and ordered that PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit be recalled.

Aggrieved from the said order dt. 25.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners.

(3). In this revision petition, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for appearing for the petitioners that since on the date when the present application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the learned APP, not only the evidence of the prosecution, but defence evidence was also recorded and closed and the case was ordered to be listed for final hearing, therefore, in these circumstances, that application is belated one and the lacuna of the prosecution should not be allowed to be filled up at this belated stage. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 25.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajasthan be set aside.

(4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document