IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.647 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 ATTAR SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. Mr. PS Ahluwala, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against order dated 24.2.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which application filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4/witnesses in a trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, has been allowed. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, the witnesses have been allowed to be recalled to give their statements. 2 The witnesses; namely, Suresh, Onkar and Shiv Charan, respondents No.2 to 4, respectively, resiled from their previous statements given in Court on 3.8.2010 and were, accordingly, declared hostile. All the three witnesses are material witnesses in the context of commission of the offence. Criminal Revision No.647 of 2011 (O&M) 2 In the application filed under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been stated by the witnesses that their deposition in court on 3.8.2010 was not voluntary, but was under pressure and false assurance of the accused. At this stage, they want to state the truth, which is necessary for just decision of the case. 3 Considering the fact that accused-Attar Singh (petitioner) is being tried for commission of offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, it would be appropriate for the trial court to consider the deposition of the witnesses. The trial court has exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the witnesses to be re-examined. In revisional jurisdiction, this court does not think it appropriate to interfere. 4 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 5 Before parting with the order, however, the trial court is directed to consider the probative value of the statements given by the witnesses in their re-examination, in view of the background of the case that they earlier did not support the prosecution version. September 15, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?