JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 62/2006 on 25.5.2010 thereby rejecting the prayer of the two Petitioners/witnesses to allow them depose further in the case. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.N. Suri, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Petition are as follows: On the basis of an information lodged by one Abdul Barik with the Officer In-charge, Badarpur Police Station informing that his brother Jallal Uddin was found dead in his residence, an U.D. Case being No. 14/2006 was registered by police. Three days thereafter i.e. on 21.6.2006, the informant again intimated in writing to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station that from secret source he came to know that his brother Jallal Uddin was killed while he was asleep and accordingly requested to take necessary action. On the basis of the aforesaid information Badarpur P.S. Case No. 78/2006 under Sections 302/34 was registered and investigation was started as usual. 4. After completion of the investigation of the case the I/O having found prima facie materials against the wife of the deceased, namely, Mariaman Nessa and one Mustafa Ahmed submitted charge sheet against them under Sections 302/34 IPC on 24.7.06. 5. The case being exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Sessions Karimganj by the learned Magistrate wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 62/2006. The learned trial judge framed charges against the accused persons under Section302/34 IPC to which they denied and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including the informant in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Karimganj to whom the case was transferred for disposal. During the course of trial on the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor the present Petitioners were summoned to depose in the case as Court witnesses by the learned trial judge and accordingly they appeared and the statements of the Petitioner No. 1 was recorded as CW 1 on 5.5.2007 and that of the Petitioner No. 2 was recorded as CW2 on 11.5.2007. Both the Petitioners/witnesses were duly cross examined by the defence and thereafter were discharged. Both the Petitioners/witnesses were duly cross examined by the defence and thereafter were discharged. But after a long period of gap of 2 years ten months from their examination, when the case was set down for hearing final arguments, an application was filed by the Petitioners before the learned trial judge intimating that after the death of their father, the victim, they were under the custody of their uncle the informant of the case, and were compelled to adduce evidence according to his dictate and they could not bring out certain more aspects pertaining to the facts of the case during their examination and for the purpose of just decision of the case, disclosure of such facts are necessary before the Court by way of re-examination. It is further stated in their application that for the death of their father, the victim, the accused persons are not guilty. The learned trial judge upon hearing the public prosecutor as well as defence, rejected the prayer of the Petitioners vide impugned order dated 25.5.2010. 6. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Goswami, submits that such a prayer to recall the witnesses and to record their statements further for just decision of the case is permissible under Section 311of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, when the witnesses themselves appeared before the Court stating that there earlier versions were given at the dictates of their uncle, the informant, which were not correct, the learned trial judge made obvious error in rejecting their prayer to allow them to depose further in the case. It is further contended that the basic purpose of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act is to recall and record the further statement of a witness, who was examined earlier is to arrive at a just decision of the case eliciting the real facts and when it was made known to the Court that the facts stated by the witnesses were not correct it becomes an obligation to find out such real facts by reexamining the witnesses. In support of his submissions learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 para 44: Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. In support of his submissions learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 para 44: Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioners earlier having been deposed as witnesses to the proceeding and their statements having been tested by thorough cross-examination by the defence counsel, exhausting the provisions of Section 137 of the Evidence Act, provision of Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 165 of the Evidence Act do not permit such a course of action, that too, to allow a witness to depose in a diametrically opposite manner than what was deposed on earlier examination. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned order justifying its interference in this revision petition. 7. In support of his argument the learned P.P. relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court. 1) (2006) 9 SCC 386 : Nisar Khan @ Guddu and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal. 2) 2005 1 SCC 115 : Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Ors. 8. I have given my consideration to the submissions put forwarded by the learned Counsel for the parties. In scrutinizing the legality, propriety and validity of the impugned order, the scope and power of the Court to allow to a witness who was discharged after due examination in a sessions trial to depose further in the case totally upsetting the earlier statements as well as the right of the witness themselves to make such a prayer personally before the Court to that effect in exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. For a ready reference the provisions of Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act as cited at the bar by the are quoted hereinbelow: Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure: "Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. For a ready reference the provisions of Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act as cited at the bar by the are quoted hereinbelow: Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure: "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. Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act: Judge's power to put questions or order production. The judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, not, without the leave of the Court, to cross examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly provided: Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Sections121 to 131, both inclusive, if the questions were asked or the documents were called for by the adverse party, nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under Sections 148or 149; nor shall be dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinabove excepted. A close scrutiny of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discloses that it contains two parts, (i) The first part is discretionary in nature which empowers the Court at any stage to summon any one as witness or (b) to examine any person present in the Court or (c) recall and re-examine any other witness. A close scrutiny of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discloses that it contains two parts, (i) The first part is discretionary in nature which empowers the Court at any stage to summon any one as witness or (b) to examine any person present in the Court or (c) recall and re-examine any other witness. (ii) the second part which is mandatory makes it obligatory upon the Court to take any of the above steps if the due evidence appears to be an essential for just decision of the case. Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure lays no limitation upon the power of the Court to recall witness once examined earlier and the power provided under the section can be exercised by the Court at any stage. But before exercising the power the Court is to form an opinion that such a recourse to recall a witness is necessary for "just decision of the case" and this is a condition precedent to exercise the power. In such a situation whether any fresh evidence proposed to be elicited by way of reexamination for just decision of the case would depend on the facts of each case. The whole object of the section being for arrival at a just decision of the case, irrespective of the fact that prosecution or defence failed to elicit necessary facts, the Court needs to be satisfied that such course of action is necessary only for the just decision. However such an action would not permit the Court to recall the witness to fill up the lacuna that appears in the evidence and it confines only for the "just decision of the case." Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act on the other hand empowers the Court to put questions to a witness or of the parties at any time in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts. In the case of Zahira Habibullah(supra), the Apex Court while considering the power of Section 165of the Indian Evidence Act vis-a-vis Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held as follows: 44. The power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. In the case of Zahira Habibullah(supra), the Apex Court while considering the power of Section 165of the Indian Evidence Act vis-a-vis Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held as follows: 44. The power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e.: (i) giving a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the Court. Though the discretion given to the Court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. There is no dispute at the bar with regard to the aforesaid power that can be exercised by a Court. 9. Mr. Goswami, has fairly submitted that Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the Court only to put question to a witness who was called for examination or re-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or of the parties and stricto sensu the said provision is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 10. From the sequence of eventful facts as narrated above it is found that the present Petitioners were examined as Court witnesses being summoned by the Court itself to depose considering that their statements are essential for just decision of the case, and at that time, after the death of their father, the victim, they were with their uncle, the first informant PW 2. At the time of her examination of CW 1 she was aged about 15 years and CW 2 was aged about 13 years and they were minors at the time of their depositions but having sufficient maturity to understand the questions put to them. Both the witnesses were extensively cross-examined by defence and in fact from their evidence it is seen that they specifically implicated the accused persons in course of their depositions. However, when the case was set down for final hearing of arguments, they themselves filed an application praying for their further examination. It is noteworthy that in the meantime their mother was released from the custody on bail after their mother coming out from jail. However, when the case was set down for final hearing of arguments, they themselves filed an application praying for their further examination. It is noteworthy that in the meantime their mother was released from the custody on bail after their mother coming out from jail. Thus the Petitioners have made this prayer by filing a written application that too after a long gap of almost three years from the date of their earlier depositions only after release of their mother who is one of the accused, on bail. 11. Close scrutiny of the application filed by the Petitioners disclose that they have already stated in their application that for the death of their father the accused persons are no way responsible. Thus what it transpires is that the witnesses want to totally resile from their statements which were recorded by the learned trial judge on 5.5.2007 and 11.5.07 examining them as Court witnesses. 12. Under the criminal jurisprudence an offence is an unlawful act done against the state and the witness is to assist in the administration of criminal justice. Paramount responsibility in criminal justice administration is on the state and that is why a victim in a criminal case is not a party to the proceeding and is regarded as a witness. Neither Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act extend such right to a witness to offer re-examination by himself. In an appropriate case either the prosecution or the defence can make such a prayer to the Court for such recalling and re-examination of a witness already examined ; but that power has not been provided to the witness under the provisions of law to approach the Court suo moto for there re-examination. In this regard reference made by the learned P.P. to the decision of Nisar Khan(supra) has relevance. In this regard reference made by the learned P.P. to the decision of Nisar Khan(supra) has relevance. In Nisar Khan(supra) the Apex Court accepted the earlier statements of me witnesses though they turned hostile to the prosecution and were eye witnesses to the occurrence on the ground that they supported the prosecution case consistently and about one year after their examination and discharge, were recalled and re-examined by the defence when they resiled from their previous statements and even on re-examination they correctly stated the date, place and genesis of occurrence but the identity of the accused was denied and the Apex Court observed that all the prosecution witnesses were at loggerhead and were not known to each other and that an eye witness had already filed an application before the trial Court that he had been threatened and intimidated by the accused not to depose against him. It was also held by the Apex Court that by the time the eye witnesses were recalled they were won over by money or muscle power, by threat or by intimidation to resile from their previous statements and accordingly their earlier statements were accepted. 13. In the instant case the change of mind of the Petitioners/witnesses occurred only after release of their mother from jail which perhaps may be for the reason that in the meantime their mother coming out of the jail influenced the witnesses who are her daughters to depose in her favour. This possibility cannot be lost sight of. 14. The power under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised only to serve the cause of justice and in public interest, hence in the event if such a course, with which we face, is permitted out to resile from the previous statements by the witnesses totally giving a new version diametrically opposite to the previous one that would not sub-serve justice in public interest and would be against the interest of justice and such a course is not permissible under the law. Section311 Code of Criminal Procedure does not approve such an action. That apart from the record it is found that the Petitioners were examined as C Ws observing all the formalities and their examination were neither farce nor part of a mock trial. Section311 Code of Criminal Procedure does not approve such an action. That apart from the record it is found that the Petitioners were examined as C Ws observing all the formalities and their examination were neither farce nor part of a mock trial. They were thoroughly cross examined by defence which they could withstand sticking to their version deposing on the facts in issue on which decision of the case would rest. In such a situation the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the Petitioner. 15. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 16. The interim order dated 30.6.10 stands vacated. 17. The learned trial judge is directed to hear the arguments of the parties and conclude the case as expeditiously as possible. Petition dismissed