Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 691 (ALL)

PATENDRA JAIN v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-02-24

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Challenge in this Revision is to the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut in S.T. No. 311 of 2005 (State v. Harbir and others) under Section 302/34, IPC, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut. By the impugned order, exercising the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) the revisionists Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain have been summoned to face the trial with the chargesheeted accused. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this Revision, in brief, are that dead body of an unknown person was found lying in Chhuiya Nala near the field of Tofa Singh situated in the jungle of village Shaulda, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut. After seeing the dead body, Village Chaukidar Raj Kumar Sharma submitted a written report at P.S. Kithore, District Meerut of 19.9.2004. On the basis of that report, a case under Section 302, IPC was registered against unknown persons at crime No. 239 of 2004. Further case of the prosecution is that Jagraj Singh, son of Sri Hansa, resident of village Titoda, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar on getting information that one dead body of some unknown person was recovered within the limits of P.S. Kithore, District Meerut, went to P.S. Kothore with other persons and seeing the photo of dead body and his clothes, told the police that photo and clothes are of his son Dinesh, who is missing since 18.9.2004. An application (Annexure-SA-I to the second supplementary affidavit) was submitted by Jagraj Singh at P.S. Kithore in which it is alleged that his son Dinesh used to supply milk at the house of Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain of Khatauli and some dispute had taken place between them about the rate of milk, due to which Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Jain had got his son implicated in a false case, in which he was sent to jail. It is further alleged in the said application that Dinesh had gone to Khatauli on 18.9.2004, but he did not come back and after making search for him, gumshudgi report was lodged on 27.9.2004 at P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. It is further alleged in the said application that Dinesh had gone to Khatauli on 18.9.2004, but he did not come back and after making search for him, gumshudgi report was lodged on 27.9.2004 at P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant Jagraj Singh went to his sasural Village Kazipur situated within the limits of P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut on 8.10.2004 and he was told there by Ajay Pal Singh s/o Lature Singh and Raghunath Singh s/o Bhole Ram that they had seen Dinesh on 18.9.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. in the company of Satvir, Rajvir, Satish and Harbir. Suspicion was also shown by Jagraj Singh in the said application that Harbir, Satyavir, Rajvir and Satish have committed the murder of his son Dinesh due to collusion of Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Jain. It is also alleged in the said application that in Meerut also, some persons had seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of these persons. On the basis of aforesaid application, the case was investigated and ultimately chargesheet was submitted under Section 302, IPC by the police of P.S. Kithore (Meerut) against Harbir, Satish, Rajvir and Satyavir. After taking cognizance on the said chargesheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial, where S.T. No. 311 of 2005 was registered against the chargesheeted accused. After framing charge against the chargesheeted accused persons, evidence of the prosecution was taken in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut, during which first informant Raj Kumar was examined as P.W. 1. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution in the said session trial are P.W. 2 Jagraj Singh, P.W. 3 Satvir Singh, P.W. 4 Vegpal, P.W. 5 Sunder, P.W. 6 Vijay Pal, P.W. 7 Hem Singh and P.W. 8 Ajay Pal Singh. After examination and cross-examination of these witnesses, an application bearing No. 141-B was moved on behalf of the prosecution to summon Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain (Revisionists herein) to face the trial with chargesheeted accused. After hearing parties counsel, learned Court below exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008 allowed the said application and summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Section 302/34 and 120-B/34, IPC. Hence, this revision. 3. After hearing parties counsel, learned Court below exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008 allowed the said application and summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Section 302/34 and 120-B/34, IPC. Hence, this revision. 3. I have heard arguments at length of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Swetashva Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. Even in the revised list, nobody appeared for the complainant Jagraj Singh, although he has put in appearance through his counsel Sri T. K. Mishra, Advocate. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists was that merely on the basis of prima facie case, summoning of the revisionists to face the trial with chargesheeted accused, exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C., is not in accordance with the law, because in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in certain latest decisions, power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if there are chances of securing conviction of the persons, who are being summoned to face the trial with the chargesheeted accused. For this submission, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the revisionists towards the following cases : I. Brindaban Das and others v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 329 . II. Ashit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and others, 2009 (2) SCC 730. III. Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(58) ACC 254 (SC). IV. Judgement dated 13.05.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in criminal appeal Ram Singh and others v. Ram Niwas and another arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6723 of 2005. V. Judgement dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Cri) 647 of 2006, Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another. VI. Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696. 5. V. Judgement dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Cri) 647 of 2006, Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another. VI. Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696. 5. On merit, it was contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the Court below has summoned the revisionists to face the trial mainly on the basis of the statements of got up and chance witnesses Veg Pal (P.W. 4), Vijay Pal (P.W. 6) and Hem Singh (P.W. 7), who were not the witnesses of chargesheet and were not even interrogated by the investigating officer and their name figured for the first time during trial in the statement of the complainant Jagraj Singh P.W. 2. The contention of the learned senior counsel Sri Satish Trivedi was that these three witnesses were purposely introduced by the prosecution during trial in the statement of complainant Jagraj Singh with a view to falsely implicate the revisionists and hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses, as they are got up and chance witnesses. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that these witnesses were wrongly summoned by the trial Court as prosecution witnesses exercising the power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that there are serious infirmities in the statement of these witnesses, but still then, the learned Court below placing reliance on their statements exercised the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists to face the trial, which is wholly illegal, because testimony of none of these witnesses inspire confidence and can not be made the basis of convicting the revisionists for the murder of deceased Dinesh and since there was no possibility of securing conviction on the basis of the evidence of these got up and chance witnesses, hence the Court below was not at all justified in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. About the statements of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, it was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that statements of other witnesses are not much relevant so far as the case of revisionists is concerned. 6. 6. The learned AGA on the other hand vehemently contended that there is sufficient material on record to show that murder of the deceased was committed due to the conspiracy of revisionists Patendra Jain and Shikhar Jain and hence, the learned Court below did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned summoning order, exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C., as prima facie case against these accused persons is made out. 7. It was also submitted by learned AGA that the witness Vegpal P.W. 4 had heard the revisionists and chargesheeted accused hatching conspiracy to commit the murder of Dinesh on 16.9.2004 in their shop situated in kasba Khatauli. It was also submitted by learned AGA that the witnesses P.W. 6 Vijay Pal Singh and P.W. 7 Hem Singh had seen the deceased in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused Harbir Singh etc. on 18.9.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. at Taxi Stand, Begum Bridge, Meerut and since the murder of deceased was committed in the same night and his dead body was recovered on 19.9.2004, hence, the evidence of these witnesses is sufficient to convict the revisionists for committing the murder of Dinesh. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire material on record carefully. 9. Both the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial with the chargesheeted accused exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C., which reads thus : 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 10. The ambit and scope of exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in certain recent decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court after making reference of its earlier decisions has held that discretion under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the Court concerned is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. In the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(58) ACC 254, the Hon’ble Apex Court after reviewing its earlier decisions in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983 (20) ACC 50 (SC) and Yuvraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (56) ACC 984 has made the following observations in para 13 of the report at page 257:- “From the decisions of this Court, as noticed above, it is evident that before a Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witnesses. For the said purpose the Court concerned may also like to consider other evidence.” (underlining is mine) 11. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witnesses. For the said purpose the Court concerned may also like to consider other evidence.” (underlining is mine) 11. In the case of Brindaban Das and others v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 329 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under in para 29 of its report at page 336 : “Section 319, Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued. The law in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan Rohtagi case and as pointed out by Mr. Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter, except for the note of discord struck in Rajedra Singh case. It is only logical that there must be substantive evidence against a person in order to summon him for trial, although, he is not named in the charge-sheet or he has been discharged from the case, which would warrant his prosecution thereafter with a good chance of his conviction.” (underlining is mine) In that case, summoning order passed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was set-aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding with on the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as far as the appellants are concerned, it is difficult to hold with any amount of certainty that the same would in all probability secure a conviction against the appellants. In para 27 of the report of this case, it is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “the fulcrum on which the invocation of Section 319, Cr.P.C. rests is whether the summoning of persons other than the named accused would make such a difference to the prosecution as would enable it not only to prove its case but to also secure the conviction of the persons summoned.” 12. The following observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 25 of the report of Brinda Ban Das case (supra)at page 335 are also worth mentioning : “The common thread in most matters where the use of discretion is in issue is that in the exercise of such discretion each case has to be considered on its own set of facts and circumstances. In matter relating to invocation of powers under Section 319, the Court is not merely required to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the FIR has surfaced during the trial, but the Court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since issuance of summons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. entails a de novo trial and a large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial Court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity.” 13. In the case of Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh v. State of Jharkhand (supra), order summoning the accused under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was set-aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court with the observations that no evidence worth the name was brought on record to arrive at a satisfaction that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction of the appellant. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in that case there was no possibility of recording the judgement of conviction against the appellants. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the High Court were set-aside. 14. Keeping in view the aforecited observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, let us now examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the basis of which power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been exercised by the learned Court below for summoning the revisionists to face the trial for committing the murder of deceased Dinesh. 15. At the time of passing order under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists to face the trial, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses in all in S.T. No. 311 of 2005. P.W. 1 Raj Kumar Sharma is the first informant, who had lodged the FIR on 19.09.2004 at P.S. Kithore about lying the dead body in nala. He has not named any person as accused and as such, his statement is of formal nature. P.W. 2 Jagraj is the father of deceased. Certified copy of his statement has been filed with the affidavit. He is not the eyewitness of any incident. He has not named any person as accused and as such, his statement is of formal nature. P.W. 2 Jagraj is the father of deceased. Certified copy of his statement has been filed with the affidavit. He is not the eyewitness of any incident. Although he has deposed about the motive and has shown suspicion against the revisionists, but his statement is not much material to show the complicity of the revisionists in the incident of committing murder of his son. He has introduced three new witnesses namely Veg Pal, Vijay Pal and Hem Singh on whose testimony the learned trial Court has mainly exercised the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. 16. P.W. 3 Satvir Singh is the brother-in-law of Jagraj Singh. His testimony is also not much material against the revisionists. Although this witness has stated that about fifteen days prior to disappearance, the deceased Dinesh had told him that when he had gone to Sikhar Chand Jain and Patendra Jain to demand his money of milk, they had threatened to get him killed, but no reliance can be placed on this statement, as this fact is not mentioned in the application, which was given by the father of the deceased at P.S. Kithore after identifying the photo of the deceased. Had the deceased told his maternal uncle Satvir Singh (P.W. 3) that Shikhar Chand Jain and Patendra Jain (revisionists) had threatened him to be killed, then he could inform the father of the deceased at the time when he was making search of his son, but even after identifying the photo and clothes of the deceased, Satvir Singh did not inform Jagraj (father of the deceased) that threatening was given by the revisionists to the deceased. The witness Satvir Singh did not give any such statement to the investigating officer, as this fact is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 17. P.W. 4 Veg Pal is the witness of hatching the conspiracy by the revisionists with chargesheeted accused for committing the murder of deceased Dinesh. Copy of his statement has been filed with the affidavit. He has stated in his statement that he had gone on the shop of Shikhar Chand on 16.09.2004 to purchase khal and there he had seen Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain having talks with 3-4 persons about committing the murder of deceased Dinesh. Copy of his statement has been filed with the affidavit. He has stated in his statement that he had gone on the shop of Shikhar Chand on 16.09.2004 to purchase khal and there he had seen Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain having talks with 3-4 persons about committing the murder of deceased Dinesh. The statement of this witness has been relied upon by the learned trial Court for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists about the testimony of the witness Veg Pal that he is a got up witness, who has been introduced for the first time during trial in the statement of P.W. 2 Jag Raj and he is not the witness of chargesheet. It was also submitted by learned counsel that according to the statement made by this witness, he had told the father of deceased about the talks which he had heard at the shop of revisionists, but this fact is not mentioned in the application which was given by the father of deceased at P. S. Kithore on 08.10.2004 after identifying the photo and clothes of the deceased and hence, no reliance can be placed on the statement of P.W. 4 Veg Pal. This submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists has got force. It has come in the statement of P.W. 4 that he had given the affidavit on 17.10.2004 about the talks, which he had heard on the shop of the revisionists and prior to that he had told the father of the deceased about the talks which he had heard on the shop of revisionists. This statement of P.W. 4 is not worthy of reliance, because it is nowhere stated in the application of Jagraj that Vegpal had told him that he had heard the talks of the revisionists with other accused persons for committing the murder of deceased. Vegpal is merely a got up witness, who has been introduced for the first time during trial. This fact is not mentioned in the statement of Jagraj Singh (father of deceased) recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not safe to place any reliance on the testimony of P.W. 4 Vegpal. 18. P.W. 5 Sunder had said nothing against the revisionists and his testimony is only against the chargesheeted accused. 19. This fact is not mentioned in the statement of Jagraj Singh (father of deceased) recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not safe to place any reliance on the testimony of P.W. 4 Vegpal. 18. P.W. 5 Sunder had said nothing against the revisionists and his testimony is only against the chargesheeted accused. 19. P.W. 6 Vijay Pal and P.W. 7 Hem Singh are the witnesses of lastly seeing the deceased in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused on 18.9.2004 at Begum Bridge, Meerut. Both these witnesses have stated that they had seen the deceased Dinesh on 18.9.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. in the company of Patendra Jain, Shikhar Chand Jain and 3-4 other persons. Statements of these witnesses also have been relied upon by the learned trial judge in exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. It was submitted about the testimony of these witnesses by the learned counsel for the revisionists that they also are got up witnesses, whose names have been introduced for the first time during trial in cross-examination of P.W. 2 Jagraj and hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony, because in the application, which was given by Jagraj P.W. 2 on 8.10.2004 at P.S. Kithore after identifying the photo and clothes of his son, it is not mentioned that the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh had seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of revisionists and other accused persons on 18.9.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. at taxi stand near Begum Bridge, Meeurt. This submission also has got force. The names of the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh were introduced for the first time by P.W. 2 in cross-examination. They are not the witnesses of chargesheet. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony also, as they also are got-up witnesses. P.W. 7 Hem Singh has stated that Jagraj had come to his house on 23.9.2004 and at that time he had told him that he had seen the deceased in the company of Shikhar Chand Jain, Patendra Jain and other chargesheeted accused. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony also, as they also are got-up witnesses. P.W. 7 Hem Singh has stated that Jagraj had come to his house on 23.9.2004 and at that time he had told him that he had seen the deceased in the company of Shikhar Chand Jain, Patendra Jain and other chargesheeted accused. Had the witness Hem Singh seen the deceased in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused on 18.9.2004 as alleged by him and if he had told the father of deceased about this fact on 23.9.2004, then this fact ought to have been mentioned in the application, which was given by the father of the deceased at P.S. Kithore on 8.10.2004 after identifying the photo and clothes of his son, but as stated herein-above, it is not mentioned in the said application that Hem Singh had seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused. In the same manner, P.W. 6 Vijay Pal also has stated in his statement that after seeing the deceased in the company of revisionists and other chargesheeted accused, he met the father of the deceased after 3-4 days and told him that he had seen the deceased in the company of revisionists and other accused on 18.9.2004, but this fact also is not mentioned in the application, which was given by the father of the deceased at P.S. Kithore on 8.10.2004. It is specifically stated by P.W. 6 Vijay Pal in his statement that Jagraj had met him on 22.9.2004 and at that time, he had told him that he had seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of Shikhar Chand Jain and Patendra Jain and other accused, but as stated herein-above, this fact is not mentioned in the application, which was given by Jagraj (father of the deceased) at P.S. Kithore and hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 6 Vijay Pal and P.W. 7 Hem Singh about seeing the deceased Dinesh in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused on 18.9.2004 near taxi stand of Begum Bridge, Meerut. Had the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused on 18.09.2004 as stated by them in their statements, which have been filed with the affidavit, and if, they had told this fact to the father of the deceased prior to lodging the application on 8.10.2004 at P.S. Kithore by the father of deceased, then this material fact ought to have been mentioned in that application, but as stated herein-above, this fact is not mentioned therein. Admittedly, gumshudgi report was lodged about disappearance of Dinesh on 27.9.2004 by his father Jag Raj Singh. If prior to 27.9.2004, the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh had told Jagraj Singh that they had seen the deceased in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused and if the deceased was missing, then there was no need to lodge gumshudgi report and FIR could be lodged against the revisionists and chargesheeted accused mentioning therein that the deceased Dinesh was lastly seen on 18.9.2004 by the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh in their company, but lodging of the gumshudgi report itself shows that the witnesses Vijay Pal and Hem Singh neither had seen the deceased in the company of revisionists and chargesheeted accused, nor they had told Jagraj Singh about this fact on 22 or 23/9/2004 as stated by them in their statements recorded during trial and hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses. 20. P.W. 8 Ajay Pal Singh has not given any evidence against the revisionists, as he is said to have seen Dinesh in the company of the chargesheeted accused Harvir, Rajvir, Satvir and Satish. Therefore, statement of this witness is not relevant against the revisionists. 21. Copy of the application, which was given by Jagraj Singh (father of the deceased) at P.S. Kithore on 08.10.2004 has been filed as Annexure-SA-I to the second supplementary affidavit. In that application, it is only mentioned that the deceased and accused were seen by some persons on 18.09.2004 at Meerut also, but names of the persons, who had seen the deceased in the company of the revisionists and chargesheeted accused are not mentioned in this application. Names of P.W. 6 Vijay Pal and P.W. 7 Hem Singh figured for the first time during trial in cross-examination of P.W. 2. Jagraj Singh. Names of P.W. 6 Vijay Pal and P.W. 7 Hem Singh figured for the first time during trial in cross-examination of P.W. 2. Jagraj Singh. Therefore, for the reasons which I have mentioned herein-above, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court was not at all justified to exercise the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists on the basis of the statements of the witnesses Vegpal, Vijay Pal and Hem Singh, who are merely got-up and chance witnesses, on whose testimony no reliance can be placed. There was no justification to summon these witnesses exercising the power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. For the reasons which I have mentioned herein-above, there is no possibility of securing the judgement of conviction on the basis of such got-up witnesses, whose names came to light for the first time during trial in the statement of P.W. 2 Jagraj Singh. For all these reasons, the impugned order can not be sustained. 23. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by me herein-above in this order about the testimony of the witnesses, are for the purpose of this Revision only and the learned trial Court is free to take its own view about evidentiary value of the statements of the witnesses, without being influenced by my observations. 24. Consequently, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut in S.T. No. 311 of 2005 (State v. Harbir and others) is set-aside. ————