Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1044 (JHR)

Tusia Mahatain v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-27

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
Order The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.-III, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 168/2005, whereby the petitioners prayer for correction of the surname of P.W. 6 has been rejected. 2. In the said case one Sandeep Kumar Rawani has been examined as P.W.6. His name also appeared as witness in the charge-sheet at serial No.3. In the deposition the name of P.W. 6 finds mentioned as Sandeep Kumar Agarwalla though the said P. W. 6 has signed as Sandeep Kumar Rawani. It has been stated that in the attendance sheet as well his name was mentioned as San deep Kumar Rawani. He had also signed the attendance sheet as Sandeep Kumar Rawani. 3. When the name of Sandeep Kumar Rawani is found written as Sandeep Kumar Agarwalla in the deposition, the Additional P.P. filed a petition praying for correction of his name. 4. Learned court below after hearing both the parties has refused the prayer by the impugned order on the ground that he had heard the witness uttering his name as Sandeep Kumar Agarwalla and he has accordingly and correctly mentioned that name in the deposition of P.W. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even if learned court below heard the witness uttering his name as Sandeep Kumar Agarwalla looking to the entry of the witnesses name as Sandeep Kumar Rawani in admitted documents such as chargesheet, attendance sheet and his signature in the deposition as P.W.6. Learned court below should have allowed the prayer and corrected the name in the title portion. Learned counsel submitted that if the said correction is not made, it may cause serious prejudice to the prosecution. 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that if the petitioner had put his signature in the attendance sheet as Sandeep Kumar Rawani and he has also signed the deposition as such and the same was also tallying with the name mentioned in the chargesheet, the name wrongly appearing in the deposition sheet should have been corrected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., I find that in the xerox copy of the attendance sheet dated 28.2.2007 the witnesses name is clearly written as 8andeep Kumar Rawani, the witness has also signed the attendance sheet as 8andeep Kumar Rawani. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., I find that in the xerox copy of the attendance sheet dated 28.2.2007 the witnesses name is clearly written as 8andeep Kumar Rawani, the witness has also signed the attendance sheet as 8andeep Kumar Rawani. The name of the said witness also appeared in the charge-sheet as 8andeep Kumar Rawani. In view of the said admitted position learned court below should not have doubted the petitioners prayer. Learned court below, even if heard the witness saying his name as 8andeep Kumar Agrawalla, he should not have refused the petitioners prayer for correction of the name, in view of the admitted documents showing his name as 8andeep Kumar Rawani. 8. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned court below is directed to consider the prosecution petition dated 23.4.2007 afresh and pass order taking due notice of the admitted documents showing the name of the said witness, as also the submission that refusal of correction of the name of P.W.6 may cause prejudice to the prosecution.