Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 781 (JHR)

Panchanand Pandit v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-08-12

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT This application is directed against the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC. IV, Deoghar in S.C. Case No. 48 of 2006 whereby application of petitioner for calling Admission Register of the year 1995 from Primary School, Pelwa, P.S.-Chandan, District- Banka, has been rejected. 2. It appears that informant/petitioner lodged an FIR alleging therein that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 kidnapped his wife, namely, Boby Devi for solemnizing marriage. It further appears that after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 366 and 120B/34 of the IPC. Then after framing of charge, both parties adduced evidences. On behalf of defence, the aforesaid Boby Devi examined as D.W. 1 and in the court she disclosed her age more than 20 years. After the close of the case of defence, an application filed in the court below under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for calling the Admission Register of Primary School, Pelwa, P.S.-Chandan, District-Banka where it is stated that the aforesaid Boby Devi studied and took admission in the year 1995. It is stated that during investigation, Investigating Officer obtained a transfer certificate from the school and according to that age of the victim at the time of occurrence was 15 years. Accordingly, prosecution prayed that the Admission Register of the School be called for, for proving the age of victim which is essential for just decision of the case. Aforesaid application filed by the petitioner rejected by learned court below vide order dated 22.8.2007 by saying that the said register is not relevant for just c1ecision of the case. 3. Sri K.P. Deo, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that admission register of aforesaid school is essential for just decision of the case. It is submitted that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer ascertained the age of victim as 15 years, on the basis of certificate issued by the concerned school. However, the victim, namely, Baby Devi examined in this case as a defence witness no. 1 and during her deposition she stated that her age is more than 20 years at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that she gave aforesaid statement deliberately to save accused person. Thus, to nullify aforesaid statement, it is necessary in the interest of justice to establish her age by other cogent and reliable evidence i.e. Admission Register of the year 1995 of Primary School, Pelwa, District-Banka, where victim studied. It is submitted that she gave aforesaid statement deliberately to save accused person. Thus, to nullify aforesaid statement, it is necessary in the interest of justice to establish her age by other cogent and reliable evidence i.e. Admission Register of the year 1995 of Primary School, Pelwa, District-Banka, where victim studied. It is further submitted that age of victim girl at the time of occurrence is essential for just decision of the case, it is mandatory for the learned court below to call for the said admission register in view of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (4) Eastern Criminal Cases 51 and 2007(1) JLJR 10. 4. On the other hand, Sri A.K. Chaudhary, appearing for the opposite parties, submits that in the instant case petitioner wants to fill up the lacuna of prosecution case. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer examined in this case as PW. 7. During cross-examination, he categorically stated that he had not visited the school for verifying the certificate nor he recorded the statement of teacher of the school. It is submitted that petitioner in his application had stated that victim studied in Primary School, Pelwa, District-Banka, but he filed a certificate issued by District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur which shows that statements of petitioner in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false and incorrect. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said certificate which has not been verified by the Investigating Officer, have no relevance for ascertaining the age of victim lady/girl. Thus, the court below had rightly rejected the application, filed by petitioner. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the said certificate was issued in the name of one Guddi Kumari daughter of Jaikrishna Pandit, resident of Village-Pahridih, District-Dumka. From perusal of Annexure-4/1, it appears that petitioner wants to call for the Admission Register of Primary School, Pelwa, P.S.-Chandan, District-Banka. As noticed above, Annexure-1 filed by the petitioner was issued by Primary School, Poraya. Annexure-1 shows that the said transfer certificate issued from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. It further appears that said certificate relates to Primary School, Poraya. Thus, the claim of petitioner/prosecution that the victim studied at Primary School, Pelwa, P.S.-Chandan, District-Banka, does not find support from Annexure-1. Annexure-1 shows that the said transfer certificate issued from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. It further appears that said certificate relates to Primary School, Poraya. Thus, the claim of petitioner/prosecution that the victim studied at Primary School, Pelwa, P.S.-Chandan, District-Banka, does not find support from Annexure-1. Thus Annexure-1, on the basis of which petitioner filed aforesaid application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not relevant for establishing the age of victim. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application in this case. 7. The learned court below after considering the materials available on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the said document is not relevant for the just decision of the case. Thus, I find no illegality in the said order. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.