Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 244 (JHR)

Udai Pratap Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-03-05

LAKSHMAN URAON

body2004
ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In paragraph No. 3 of the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has been mentioned that writ petitioner No. 3 Jitan Mallik son of late Fakirchand Mallik died on 9.11.2003 during pendency of this writ petition. In that view of the matter, the name of the petitioner No. 3 is deleted. 3. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order dated 12.7.2002, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ill, Dhanbad, in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1994, arising out of G.R. No. 3369 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards two charge-sheets (Annexures 2 and 5), submitted in this case, by the Investigating Officer. At Serial No. 5 of Annexure-2 the name of Dr. A.P. Sinha has been mentioned whereas at the same serial No, 5 in another charge sheet (Annexure-5), the name of the Dr. S.P. Sinha has been mentioned, although at that time both of them were posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of trial objection was raised that the doctor who examined the injured and issues injury report is Dr. A.P. Sinha. The prosecution has examined Dr. S.P. Sinha and not Dr. A.P. Sinha, who has issued injury report. It is also contended that even without case diary, Witnesses Nos. 1 to 5 have been examined. 6. Learned J.C. to G.P. II submits that without the case diary, it is not impossible to examine the witnesses and there must be case diary available before the Court below itself. 7. As the matter with regard to hearing of the criminal case is still pending, five witnesses have been examined and only 6th witness i.e. Investigating Officer is yet to be examined, the learned Court below is directed that the Investigating Officer along with the original case diary should be examined, cross-examined and discharged. If the case diary is not available, the carbon copy of the same, if available, can also serve the purpose. 8. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. If the case diary is not available, the carbon copy of the same, if available, can also serve the purpose. 8. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. As it is a case of the year 1988, the learned Court below is directed to take every steps to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after hearing the parties. In course of hearing, if any objection is raised relating to Dr. A.P. Sinha or Dr. S.P. Sinha, who issued the injury report after examining the injured, the same shall be considered and disposed of after hearing both the parties.