Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. In Case FIR No. 328 dated 4.7.1998, under Section 302/307/148/149, Indian Penal Code and 27, Arms Act authored by Joginder Singh son of Jarnail Singh the case is as follows : Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh are two brothers. Joginder Singh is younger to Gurnam Singh. They both were putting up together and cultivating land. Land adjacent to their land belongs to Avtar Singh son of Iqbal Singh resident of Bilona. According to Joginder Singh, Avtar Singh had illegally connected electric wire with his Tubewell without obtaining electric connection since 2 months prior to 3.7.1998. On 2.7.1998, officials of the Electricity Department came along with the police and removed that electric wire. Avtar Singh suspected them (Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh) of having passed on information to the Electricity Department in respect of the pilferage of electricity by Avtar Singh. On 3.7.1998, Amarjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Kashmir Singh sons of Jarnail Singh of village Bilona stopped the tractor of Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh in which they were carrying fertilisers to their fields. Amarjit Singh was armed with a gun, Bishan Singh son of Mohinder Singh was driving that tractor and he (Joginder Singh) along with Pala Ram son of Fakiria and Sunehra son of Santa Ram were sitting on the said tractor. Pala Ram and Sunehra are partners in cultivation with Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh. Joginder Singh and Gurnam Singh did not raise any protest and took their tractor to their field. Amarjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Kashmir Singh continued abusing them. In the evening at about 4 p.m. on 3.7.1998, Joginder Singh along with his brother Gurnam Singh was present at their Dera in their field. Avtar Singh son of lqbal Singh armed with a sota, Sher Singh son of Avtar Singh armed with a double barrel gun, Amarjit Singh armed with double barrel gun and Amrik Singh son of Jarnail Singh armed with gandasi came to their Dera on their tractor. Kashmir Singh was driving the tractor. It was Swaraj 733 make. Immediately on reaching there, Sher Singh fired at Joginder Singh with double barrel gun and the shot hit the wall after hitting the fingers of the right hand of Joginder Singh. Sher Singh fired another shot which hit him on his left buttock. Amarjit Singh fired a shot at Gurnam Singh. It was Swaraj 733 make. Immediately on reaching there, Sher Singh fired at Joginder Singh with double barrel gun and the shot hit the wall after hitting the fingers of the right hand of Joginder Singh. Sher Singh fired another shot which hit him on his left buttock. Amarjit Singh fired a shot at Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh died instantaneously on receipt of that shot as that shot had hit his chest. Joginder Singh, Pala Ram son of Fakiria Ram and Bishan Singh son of Mohinder Singh witnesses the occurrence. They raised Lalkara. Joginder Singh tried to snatch gun from Sher Singh. In the process gun broke into 2 pieces. Mohinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh and Jagir Singh son of Dalip Singh put Joginder Singh on tractor and got him admitted in the hospital. He was referred to General Hospital, Karnal by the doctor after he was given first aid. Swaran Singh son of Gulla Singh and Mukhtiar Singh got him admitted in General Hospital, Karnal. In the FIR authored by Joginder Singh, the accused who have been named as the murderers of his brother Gurnam Singh are Avtar Singh, Sher Singh, Amarjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Kashmir Singh. 2. During investigation, Avtar Singh etc. named in the FIR were found innocent and instead, one Gur Lal who is brother of accused Amarjit Singh was found to have committed this carnage and the Police accordingly challaned only Gur Lal. So far as Avtar Singh etc. who are named in the FIR are concerned, they were not challaned. 3. Not satisfied with the way the police investigated the case Joginder Singh filed complaint, (copy Annexure P.2) in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal against Avtar Singh etc. the same accused whom he had named in the FIR. Challan was committed to the court of Session by the Magistrate. 4. After recording preliminary evidence, the complaint case was also committed to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate. Challan case and complaint case are being tried separately by the same court. 5. In the State case, the prosecution evidence is over. 6. In the complaint case also, the prosecution evidence is over. 7. In the complaint case accused Avtar Singh has made an application to the court wherethrough he has prayed that Ahlmad of the court along with judicial file titled State v. Gur Lal Singh, Dr. 5. In the State case, the prosecution evidence is over. 6. In the complaint case also, the prosecution evidence is over. 7. In the complaint case accused Avtar Singh has made an application to the court wherethrough he has prayed that Ahlmad of the court along with judicial file titled State v. Gur Lal Singh, Dr. Rajinder Kumar Bajoria, Medical Officer, CHC, Assandh, along with MLR of Gur Lal Singh dated 3.7.1998 and others mentioned in the application (Copy Annexure P.3), 10 persons be summoned as court witnesses. It has been alleged in this application that the examination of these witnesses by the court is necessary to bring before the court what the truth is. It has been stated in the application that non- examination of Medical Officers and the witnesses relying on whose evidence the Investigating Agency has found the version of Joginder Singh as unfounded and concocted and instead they challaned Gur Lal Singh, will leave the matter in obscurity. If the witnesses relying on whose evidence the Investigating Agency has found Avtar Singh etc. as innocent and has found only Gurlal Singh as responsible for this carnage are explained, the court will be able to reach a just conclusion. Vide the impugned order dated 9.11.2001 Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal has allowed this application and has ordered that those 10 persons be summoned and examined as court witnesses in the interest of justice in the exercise of powers vesting in him under section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. Joginder Singh has knocked the door of this court through this Criminal Misc and has prayed for the setting aside of this order. 9. Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer for the setting aside of this order dated 9.11.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal submits that they are not court witnesses. They are, in fact, defence witnesses. He submits that if Avtar Singh etc. want, they can well produce them in their defence. He submits that truth will come to the fore even if they are produced by them in their defence. He submits that the value of their statements will not be enhanced if they are examined as court witnesses. He submits that they are essentially defence witnesses. They cannot be said to be "court witnesses". He submits that truth will come to the fore even if they are produced by them in their defence. He submits that the value of their statements will not be enhanced if they are examined as court witnesses. He submits that they are essentially defence witnesses. They cannot be said to be "court witnesses". Before the court whatever version comes, Court can appreciate that version on the basis of evidence produced before it. If the accused Avtar Singh etc. want to show that they are innocent and in support of their innocence they rely upon those witnesses, they can well examine them in their defence. He submits that there was no occasion for the court to order their examination as court witnesses. 10. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for Avtar Singh etc. accused on the other hand submits that if they are examined as court witnesses they will be available for being cross-examined by Joginder Singh complainant as well as by Avtar Singh etc. If they are labelled as "defence witnesses" they will be led by Avtar Singh etc. and they will be cross-examined by Joginder Singh. He further submits that it will depend upon the quality of what they depose that they will be taken as reliable or they will be taken as unreliable. Labelling them as court witnesses or defence witnesses will not add to the value of their testimony nor the value of their testimony will be detracted. In support of this submission that the court was within its right to summon them as court witnesses Mr. Goyal seeks to draw support from the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Balbir v. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 839 in para No. 18 of this judgment, Honble Supreme Court has observed as follows : "We make note of the fact that in the Police challan three persons (Mange Ram, Hanuman, and Kheru) were cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence. If prosecution had deliberately avoided to examine such important witnesses, the court should have exercised its power under Section 311 of the Code to know what their version is regarding the occurrence. Evidence of PW-4 and of PW-5 could never have been evaluated or appraised without the aid of the evidence of those whom the investigating agency cited as the real eye witnesses. Evidence of PW-4 and of PW-5 could never have been evaluated or appraised without the aid of the evidence of those whom the investigating agency cited as the real eye witnesses. The very approach for considering the truth of the testimony of PW-4 Jagdish and PW-5 Laxmi Narain cannot be divorced totally from the broad reality that the statutory investigating agency had found their version unfounded as well as concocted, and instead the agency found that the real culprit was Guria." 11. In this case, so far as Joginder Singh is concerned, his revision is consistent - both in the challan case and the complaint case - with regard to the accused who committed this carnage and with regard to the eye witnesses who eye witnessed the occurrence. If the police found Avtar Singh etc. innocent on the basis of some evidence recorded by them, Avtar Singh etc. can examine them in their defence. The witnesses who are essential witnesses to depose to the innocence of Avtar Singh etc. should be examined by Avtar Singh etc. in their defence so that Joginder Singh is able to test their veracity on the touch stone of cross-examination. 12. In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal is set aside. If Avtar Singh etc. want them to be examined, they are free to examine them as defence witnesses.