Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.6.2005 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Jaipur, whereby he has rejected an application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning two Investigating Officers as Court witnesses.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that a Mriag FIR was registered and an enquiry was stated. Initially, during the course of enquiry, the complainant did not level any substantial allegations against the accused petitioners. However, two days later, Sohan Lal, the brother of the deceased, submitted a report in the Police Station wherein he alleged the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC against the petitioner. Four different Investigation Officer (henceforth to be referred to as the I.O., for short) of the rank of Addl. SP/Deputy S.P., carried out the investigation. Subsequently, the police submitted a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. But subsequently, the court framed a charge for offence under Sections 304-B IPC against the petitioners.

(3). Interestingly, the prosecution had proposed to examine 42 witnesses, but after examining only 11 witnesses, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document