Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 346 (JHR)

Alam Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2011-04-20

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 637 of 2007 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-VI, Ranchi by which a petition filed on his behalf under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure for recall of the prosecutrix PW.1 Mamta Kumari for her further cross-examination was rejected. 2. The petitioner is facing charge under Section 376 I.P.C. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was examined on behalf of the prosecution and cross-examined at length, who on account of inadvertence of the Defence Counsel certain relevant questions could not be put to her and for that the petitioner has been prejudiced. The petitioner wants that certain limited question should be put to her and the sample of the questions was given in the petition, which was filed before the Trial Judge (Annexure-2) but the petition under Section 31.1 was rejected with the observation, "Applying above position of law in the fact of the instant case, I find that all the questions which has been framed in para 34 and other paragraphs of the petition, stood well rephed and covered in paras 13, 14, 16,22,23,25,26,27, 28 and 29 of the cross-examination of P.W.1 informant/prosecutrix/victim. There is not a single question, as framed in the petition which requires further cross-examination of the prosecutrix P.W.1, who originally be• long to Nepal. Learned Addl. P.P. is correct with the submission that P.W. 1 has been extensively cross-examined in as many as 31 paragraphs extending to two years continuity. After going through the petition and also deposition of P.W.1 this Court does not find any reason to recall P.W.1 as all the questions posed in the petition are already replied in the extensive cross-examination of the witness. In result, I do not find any merit in the petition u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused which is rejected. In view of the fact that judgment of the case has been adjourned twice due to representation filed by the accused u/s 317 Cr.P.C. for one reason or another. Put up on 14.10.09 for judgment. " 4. I have carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the Trial Judge and I do not find any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. I.A. No. 1208 of 2010: 5. Put up on 14.10.09 for judgment. " 4. I have carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the Trial Judge and I do not find any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. I.A. No. 1208 of 2010: 5. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the request for early hearing of this petition. 6. This petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed above.