testimony of a reliable witness does not become unreliable, because one or more witnesses have been withheld.
What is meant by the expression "sufficient ground to proceed" for the purpose of Section 204, Cr. P.C. is not difficult to ascertain. From one angle this expression means existence of a prima facie case, provided that Judge believes the allegations to be true. In view of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the Judge either must believe in the existence of a fact or he must come to conclusion that he considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case act on the supposition that it exists, before he holds the fact to be "proved." It has also been observed in some cases that object ofinquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to find out the truth of the allegations made by the complainant and the Court is not precluded from conducting the inquiry to ascertain if the allegations made before it are true. The expression "prima facie case" should therefore be understood as referring to facts and this expression cannot be so interpreted as to. include false allegation. The object of inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though limited has an important purpose to serve. Its object is to find out whether the allegations are true so that the falsecomplaints may be thrown away under Section 203 and the allegations which the Judge believes to be true may be entertained for the purpose of proceeding under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant is therefore under a legal obligation to convince the Court conducting an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code that, the allegations made by him are true and that the complaint is bona fide in the sense that the dominent object, of the complaint is to get the real offenders punished.
10. Viewed in above light the crucial question is; whether the complainant during an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code is under a legal obligation to examine all the material witnesses as has been observed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 and the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Cases) or he may at his discretion examine some of the eye-witnesses to support the allegations made by him. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Cases) have expressed the view that complainant's son Pramil and complainant's wife and daughters, who were present in the house and were eye-witnesses as well as victims should have been examined in Court and since, they have not been examined, the allegations relating to their ill-treatment cannot be believed.Examination of material witnesses before the Court conducting inquiry and trial is ordinarily expected from the parties on whom the burden to prove the fact lies and the reason behind this expectation is that if the material witnesses are withheld, the party on whom the burden to prove the fact lies may not have any evidence to prove the same. Another principle governing the production of evidence is "the best evidence rule," laying down that the party on whom the burden to prove the fact lies, must produce the best evidence available to it. Therefore, if, in a given case, the testimony of a material witness may be described as the best evidence in the case, the Courts may insist that such best evidence must be produced. If for any reason production of the best evidence is not possible. The only remedy would be to produce next best evidence and in these cases, if the party produces next best evidence, the Court has to take such next best evidence in consideration and find out whether the alleged fact has or has not been proved. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Cases) have not referred to any rule or law which may require the examination of the victims in the Court in all cases, nor they have discussed the best evidence rule and the provisions relating to drawing of adverse inferences under Section 114(g
