P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate made on 3/05/1989 in G. R. Case No. 786/1979/t. R. No. 253a/82, the petitioner Niranjan Ghosh has come up with the instant petition-in-revision. The petitioner was the injured victim of the alleged occurrence of the aforesaid trial. The trial ended in acquittal of all the three accused/o. P. s of the offence under Section 326/34 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE main thrust of the petition is on the point that the trial court should have exercised powers conferred under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. so as to summon the doctor along with the records of the hospital relating to the injuries on the person of the petitioner and also to summon the Police Investigating Officer at the trial. It has also been urged to reappreciate the evidence available on the record. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the view point raised on behalf of the petitioner, it seems necessary to narrate the course of the trial, which obviously appears to be a chequered one. The trial relates to an occurrence taking place on Nov. 20, 1979 for which a charge-sheet, after an investigation, was submitted on 15-12-1981 and the accused/o. Ps. were charged of the offence under Section 326; 34 on 16-9-1982. Thereupon, the prosecution could examine as many as eight witnesses during the long course of the pendency of the trial for about six years, the last witness (P. W. 8) having been examined on 6-10-1988. The accused O. Ps were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 25-4-1989 and, ultimately, the impugned judgment and order was passed on 3-5-1989. ( 4 ) IN the above backdrop of the long pendency of the trial, it was further significant to note that on behalf of the prosecution two criminal Motions bearing No. 21/88 and 190/88 were taken out at the instance of the present petitioner. Both the motions were allowed giving the petitioner successive opportunity to examine one or the other doctor on behalf of the prosecution as desired by him. I find that two doctors, namely, PW. 6, Dr. Hari Prasad Gayen and P. W. 8, Dr. Subhas Chandra Basu were examined by the prosecution, whereas yet another doctor, namely, Dr. G. R. Manna could not be examined. Dr. I find that two doctors, namely, PW. 6, Dr. Hari Prasad Gayen and P. W. 8, Dr. Subhas Chandra Basu were examined by the prosecution, whereas yet another doctor, namely, Dr. G. R. Manna could not be examined. Dr. G. R. Manna appears to have simply admitted the petitioner in the hospital. Be that as it may, the relevant point to be taken note of is that though the trial was allowed to remain pending for a period of about 7 years, Dr. Manna who was expected to prove some papers of the hospital, could not be examined. It may also be added here that the petitioner has also urged the necessity of examining the Police Investigating Officer on behalf of the prosecution. ( 5 ) THE question raised whether the trial Court should have given some more opportunity to the prosecution so as to examine Dr. Manna and the Police Investigating Officer. While paying attention to the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Burdwan, in the above mentioned criminal motions. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had already been given due opportunity to examine the remaining witnesses as also to produce the documents as desired. In this context Mr. Ray learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the authority reported in AIR 1991 SC 1346 and has urged that it was required of the trial Court to summon the remaining witnesses, namely, Dr. Manna and also the Police Investigating Officer before concluding the trial. The legal proposition as propounded in the above authority cannot of course, be disputed and it was certainly within the competence of the trial Court to summon any person as witness or to recall and re-examine him at any stage of the proceeding but it was also subject to an overriding principle of law that such power could be exercised only when the examination of such witness was essential for just decision of the case. ( 6 ) WHILE it was true on one side that the trial Court had ample power under Section 311 of the Cr. ( 6 ) WHILE it was true on one side that the trial Court had ample power under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. to summon any person as witness or to recall and re-examine him for a just decision of the case, on the other side, it was also unequivocal responsibility of the Court to ensure a speedy trial as contemplated under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court has to strike at a balance between the two responsibilities and that would much depend upon the exigency of an individual case. A court of law, would most certainly scare from a blatant denial of the right of speedy trial of the accused, such right being itself a part of one's fundamental right emanating from Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IN the instant case it is well to notice that the trial remained pending for about 7 years during the course of which opportunities, times without number, were given to the prosecution to exhaust all the required evidence on its behalf, so much so, that by the intervention of two criminal motions being allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, the prosecution could get extension of time to examine some witnesses. The court, however, cannot help the situation if a party to a criminal proceeding does not choose to avail the opportunity and simply goes on with dilatory tactics. On going through the records of the trial-in-question, one would be surely left with an impression that it was nothing but a dilatory tactics of the prosecution which managed the trial to remain pending for such a long period and any further delay would have, instead of serving the cause of justice as provided under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. resulted into miscarriage of justice by denying a speedy trial to the accused/o. Ps. ( 8 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the above legal constraint, while going into the question whether the examination of Dr. Manna and the Police Investigation Officer was essential for just decision of the case, I would like to briefly state the factual matrix of the matter. The prosecution story depicts that on 20th Nov. 1979 at about 5. 15 a. m. the petitioner Niranjan Ghosh (P. W. 3) was assaulted by the accused/o. Ps with the help of bow and arrow while he was working in his field. The prosecution story depicts that on 20th Nov. 1979 at about 5. 15 a. m. the petitioner Niranjan Ghosh (P. W. 3) was assaulted by the accused/o. Ps with the help of bow and arrow while he was working in his field. On his cry, his brother Munani Mohan Ghosh (P. W. 1) and his nephew Jagat Kumar Ghosh (P. W. 2) arrived there and took him to his house where Dr. Hariprasad Gayen (P. W. 6) examined him and referred him to the B. M. C. Hospital. The victim Naranjan Ghosh (P. W. 3) is said to have given out the names of the accused as his assailants to his wife Badhu Rabi Ghosh (P. W. 4) and co-villagers, namely, Gurudas Nandan (P. W. 5) and Ratnakar Mandol (P. W. 7) besides his brother and nephew (P. Ws. 1 and 2 ). ( 9 ) AT the trial, it was only the victim petitioner (P. W. 3) who directly alleged that accused Ananda shoot an arrow, which struck on the right hand side of scapular region. According to him, the other two accused, namely, Sanat and Kesha were present with Ananda giving threats to him (P. W. 3 ). The petitioner's nephew (P. W. 2) claimed to have seen all the three accused while running away from the place of occurrence. He (P. W. 2) did not see any accused while shooting the arrow. The other three witnesses (P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5) not being an eye-witnesses deposed about the names of the assailants given out by the petitioner, P. W. 3. According to P. W. 1, the petitioner (P. W. 3) gave out the names of Ananda and Sanat to have hit him with arrows, whereas the informant's wife (P. W. 4) stated to have learnt that it was only accused Anand who shoot the arrow. P. W. 5 stated to have learnt from the petitioner (P. W. 3) that accused Ananda and Sanat both aimed the arrow on his back. The other witness (P. W. 7) refused to support the prosecution story about the names of the accused given by the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE testimony of the aforesaid witnesses (P. W. 1 to 5 and 7) was disbelieved by the Court below for one or the other reason. The other witness (P. W. 7) refused to support the prosecution story about the names of the accused given by the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE testimony of the aforesaid witnesses (P. W. 1 to 5 and 7) was disbelieved by the Court below for one or the other reason. The trial Court emphatically held that P. W. 1 and 2 had not seen the occurrence; and there was variance in the statements of the witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 5 and 7 ). ( 11 ) AS to the injuries, allegedly inflicted on the person of the petitioner (P. W. 3), it has been rightly pointed out by the trial Court that according to P. W. 2 the arrow was taken out by him from the back of the petitioner whereas the petitioner himself stated that the arrow struck him on the right hand side on the scapular region and that it did not hit him in the chest or stomach. The two doctors (P. Ws. 6 and 8) had something else to depose in this regard, according to P. W. 6 there was one penetrating injury on the posterior part of the chest-wall of the patient to whom he had given first aid and had thereupon referred him to B. M. C. Hospital for better treatment. The doctor of B. M. C. Hospital (P. W. 8) submitted that he had found chest injury on the person of the patient, namely, Niranjan Ghosh (the petitioner ). The relevant injury report was of course not on the record. The variance in the statements of the witnesses as to the part of the body inflicted with injury appears to be yet another ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution story by the trial Court. The trial Court has also taken note of the F. I. R. of the case having been not formally proved on the record. ( 12 ) I was taken through the evidence on the record with reference to the observations made by the trial Court to discard the prosecution story and I do not find any valid ground to disagree with those observations. I am rather constrained to add that no useful purpose was likely to be subserved by mere examination of the left out witness Dr. Manna and the Police Investigating Officer. They had practically no role. I am rather constrained to add that no useful purpose was likely to be subserved by mere examination of the left out witness Dr. Manna and the Police Investigating Officer. They had practically no role. Those witnesses, even if examined, had no any vital role so as to improve the case of the prosecution. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was rather to more disadvantageous to the defence inasmuch the defence had to point out certain material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Be that as it may, even having disregard to any sort of prejudice to the defence in this regard the prosecution case was bound to fail. No purpose was going to be subserved by formally proving even the F. I. R. Thus, either in the wake of the facts or in the exigency of the case, the Court below was not required, in law, to have prolonged the trial for an indefinite period so as to examine the left out witness Dr. Manna and the Investigating Officer. ( 13 ) AS a result of the discussions above I find the instant revisional petition devoid of any merit and, accordingly the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.