tilltOtAHBUa -^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPLICANT CRIMINAL REVISION N0.548/2011 Manoher Kanwar, S/o Dalsay Uranv (correct name is Datsay Kanwar), aged about 22 years, R/o Kosara, Poiice Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 401 READ WITH SECTION 397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appearance: Mr. S.K.Mishra, Counsel forthe applicant. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (19.09.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA^J, fc^2?- Heard on admission. The applicant is an accused in Session Trial No.252/2010 pending in the Court of Second Additional Session Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur). In the above S.T., the applicant is facing charges under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant abducted a minor girl namely Shalu, who was aged about 12 years on the date of the incident. Shatu has been examined as PW-5 on 28.02.2011. Many other witnesses including father and mother of the prosecutrix have been examined. Father of the prosecutrix- Shreelal has been examined as PW-1 and mother of the prosecutrix Kuleshwari has been examined as PW-2. The above i Iflil m Lr<ramilTld<l^nii»Ti it —T?———r Sih-gs'»,>| 'Ty CRIMINAL REVISION N0.548/2011 shyna witnesses were cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the defence. After examination of about 10witnesses, the applicant filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling Ku. Shalu (PW-5), her father Shreelal (PW-1) and her mother Kuleshwari (PW-2). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there were some ambiguities retating to the age of the prosecutrix in the evidence of above witnesses, therefore, the said application was filed by the applicant. The evidence of Shreelal (PW-1) and Kuleshwari (PW-2) has been filed along with this revision. The evidence of Shalu (PW-5) has also been shown during the course of arguments. After going through the evidence of above 3 witnesses, t do not find any ambiguity in their evidence, on which, they shoutd be recalled in the Court for further cross-examination by the defence. The provisions of Section 311 are not meant for the purpose of making way to the defence to make out their case nor it can be utitilzed for the purpose of filling up lacuna in the prosecution case. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the view that the Additional Session Judge was fully justified in rejecting the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recallingthe above witnesses. The revision has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed summarily. ______ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i^