ORDER :

(Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prem Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Surya Naryan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred u/s 397/401 CrPC against the order dated 26.11.2022 on the Application dated 26.11.2022 u/s 311 CrPC moved by revisionists, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Gonda in Session Trial No. 85/2018, vide Crime No. C-14/2014, u/s 323/325/307/504/506 IPC, P.S. Wzir Ganj, Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for revisionists submitted that the application u/s 311 CrPC has been moved before learned trial court with prayer that for the interest of justice he want to cross-examine the PW-1 Sri Umesh Dutt Singh on following points:

(i) Was it dark at the time of incident?

(ii) Were people's faces visible at the time of incident?

(iii) Were you able to recognize the accused Raj Karan, Krishna Kumar and Shiv Kumar at the time of incident.

(iv) Was the accused name in written report on the advice of villager's?

4. The trial court rejected the application of revisionists for cross-examination of above points by detail speaking order dated 29.11.2022, order of learned trial court reflect that sufficient cross examination has been done by learned counsel for revisionist. Each and every aspect touch by the trial court. Trial is fix for 313 CrPC and on behalf of revisionist delay tactics adopted by the revisionist and revisionist's application of recall the witness PW-1 for further cross examination have no substance and application u/s 311 CrPC is devoid of merit hence rejected. Being aggrieved with this, the revision has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for revisionists submitted that for just decision of the case, cross-examination of PW-1 is inevitable and due to ignorance of the earlier counsel this question was not asked at the time of cross-examination of the prosecution witness and learned trial court rejected the application u/s 311 CrPC without application of mind if the revision not allowed then the valuable right of revisionist shall be curtailed and pray for one chance for cross examination of PW-1.

6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and submitted that the accused persons and witnesses are the resident of same village and know each other well by their colloquial stature and language and such person can identify each other even in the dark of night. Learned AGA further submitted that the alleged date of incident was mentioned in FIR as 18.2.2004 at 6.30 p.m. and at that time there was no dark as the sunset time was about 6.00 p.m. Detail examination of PW-1 has already been conducted by learned trial court and learned trial court rightly rejected the application u/s 311 CrPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for revisionists as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Section 311 CrPC reads as under:

"Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

8. The object of Section 311 CrPC enable the Court at any stage of any inquiry summon any person as a witness, in order to enable the Court to find out the truth and rather just decision the salutary provision of Section 311 are enacted. Thus, the object of this provision is to do the justice. It is done neither to fill up any gap in the prosecution evidence nor to give it any unfair advantage against the accused. The fundamental thing to be seen is whether the Court think it necessary in the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it and the power to be exercised u/s 311 CrPC only for strong and val