Hon’ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contends that witness Bishambher has a shop near the place of occurrence and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has placed reliance upon the statement of Bishambher but the prosecution did not produce the witness Bishambher as prosecution witness. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for examining Bishambher as Court witness which was rejected by the learned Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2008. The learned Counsel for the revisionist stated that rejection of an application for examining the important witness was erroneous. He also contends that the evidence of Bishambher was essential for the just decision of the case and that the learned Trial Court was bound to examine him as Court witness.

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Iddar v. Aabida, 2007 (59) ACC 517; Rama Paswan and others v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (58) ACC 356; Zahira Habibullah Sehikh v. State of Gu