The wide powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are awarded to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision of the case.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioners, who are accused and are facing trial in case FIR No. 22 dated 19.2.2004 under Sections 302/148/149/120-B IPC and Sections 25/27/30/ 54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Rampura, have filed this revision petition praying for setting aside the order dated October 16, 2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, recalling two prosecution witnesses, namely Nand Kishore (PW.5) and Vijay Kumar (PW.6) for their re-examination on an application filed by Nand Kishore, one of the witnesses, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code).

2. In this case, on the statement of Nand Kishore, the aforesaid FIR was registered immediately after the alleged occurrence. It was stated by the complainant that he and his elder brother Darshan Kumar deceased were liquor contractor in the area of Rajpura, Bhagta, Kotkapura, Jaito, Bajakhana circle. On 19.2.2004, they along with driver Gura Singh had gone to Rampura Mandi, where they were having a rented house. After checking the accounts, they were going back to Bajakhana and the car was being driven by Darshan Kumar and when they reached the kacha drain bridge, a white Santro car came from the front side and stopped near their car. The said car was being driven by Inderjit Singh Bhatia. It was further stated by the complainant Nand Kishore that Khushwinder Singh and Nirmaljit Singh (petitioners herein), who were sitting in the car, came out having pistols in their hands. Both of them fired from their respective weapons and killed Darshan Kumar, brother of the complainant. It was further stated in the FIR that the murder of Darshan Kumar was planned by Prabjinder Singh alias Dimpi son of Amarjit Singh, who was also having liquor business in the area and was having some money dispute with them. It was also stated by the complainant that he got a case under Section 307 registered against them at Police Station Jaitu, which was later on cancelled.

3. During the investigation of the instant case, on the disclosure statements of the petitioners, the weapons used in the alleged offence were recovered. Thereafter, the challan was filed and charges framed, and now the petitioners along with other accused are facing trial.

4. During trial, Nand Kishore and Vijay Kumar were examined by the prosecution as PW.5 and PW.6, respectively. They did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile. They were permitted to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Subsequently, at a later stage, when the prosecution evidence was going on, PW.5 Nand Kishore filed an application under Section 311 of the Code for re-calling him as well as PW.6 Vijay Kumar for their re- examination in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case on the ground that earlier they could not depose true facts before the court, as they were under threat of elimination by the accused, who are influential persons and have criminal nexus with terrorists. It was stated that kingpin of the offence Prabjinder Singh alias Dimpi, under whose threat they did not depose true facts before the court, has now expired, therefore, the terror of threat in their mind has been reduced and in the changed circumstances, they be permitted to be re-examined in the court. In the application, the complainant also produced copies of DDRs dated 16.10.2004 and 8.11.2004 showing that the witnesses were threatened by the accused in order to prevent them from deposing against the accused. The affidavit of Vijay Kumar witness was also produced to show that earlier, he avoided to depose against the accused for saving his family from being killed.

5. The trial court, by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another, 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 182 (SC) : 1991 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 271 and U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 113 : 206(