Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1384 (PAT)

Lal Ji Singh v. State Of Bihar

2012-09-27

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2012
ORDER Heard. 2. By the impugned order dated 02.01.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1998 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Rohtas at Sasaram, a petition filed on behalf of the informant- petitioner for reopening the prosecution case and allowing him to produce some more witnesses in support of the prosecution has been rejected. 3. It appears that the petitioner launched a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, giving rise to Dinara P.S. Case No. 192 of 1996 dated 01.12.1996. However, subsequently, after about three months offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was also added by an order dated 06.03.1997. Opposite party no. 2 to 9 were arrayed in the category of the accused. On close of investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken for offence under Section 307/149 and for other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of sessions, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1998. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that the charge was framed against the accused persons on 19.03.1998 and the trial remained pending for more than six years, yet only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and despite opportunity given to the prosecution, no other witnesses were produced. Moreover, in spite of service of summons, even the informant-petitioner did not choose to appear as witness before the learned trial court. Consequently, prosecution evidence was closed on 12.07.2004. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, a petition was filed on 26.07.2004 by the informant- petitioner for reopening of the prosecution case and for recording the evidence of some material witnesses in terms Section 311 Cr. P. C. The petition filed on behalf of the informant- petitioner was opposed by the accused persons and finally by the impugned order dated 02.01.2009, the aforesaid petition has been rejected. It is submitted at the Bar that during the pendency of this application, statement of the accused opposite parties was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and now, the case is fixed for final hearing. 6. It is submitted at the Bar that during the pendency of this application, statement of the accused opposite parties was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and now, the case is fixed for final hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge was framed in the year 1998 and the matter remained pending before the learned trial court for long six years, but the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not take proper steps for production of material witnesses, therefore, the petition was filed on behalf of the informant for re-opening of the prosecution case. According to him, in the given facts of the case, the prosecution case is fit to be reopened for giving an opportunity to the petitioner for producing some more witnesses. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused opposite party no. 2 to 9 has opposed the prayer. It is contended that the prosecution case was started as far back as in the year 1996 and since then more than sixteen years have elapsed, and during the aforesaid long period of 16 years the accused opposite parties had to face rigors of the criminal trial. It is further contended that in view of Section 225 Cr. P. C. in a Session trial prosecution has to be conducted by a Public Prosecutor, but the Public Prosecutor did not file any petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. either for re-opening of the prosecution case or for examination of any other material witness. According to him, the petition filed on behalf of the private person, namely, the informant, was not maintainable and it has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court. 8. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the charge was framed as far back as in the year 1998 and the trial of the accused opposite parties remained pending for more than six years, yet the prosecution examined only two witnesses. The petitioner, being the informant, was aware about the framing of charge and pendency of the criminal trial. Even summons was issued and served upon him, but he did not appear as a witness before the learned trial court, and for such a long time, he did not take effective steps for production of material witnesses. He appears to have woken up from his deep slumber only after closure of the prosecution evidence by order dated 12.07.2004. 9. Even summons was issued and served upon him, but he did not appear as a witness before the learned trial court, and for such a long time, he did not take effective steps for production of material witnesses. He appears to have woken up from his deep slumber only after closure of the prosecution evidence by order dated 12.07.2004. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing trial in a counter case lodged from the side of the accused persons. Apparently, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 26.07. 2004 was not a bonafide petition, but was filed with an ulterior motive for delaying disposal of the criminal trial of the accused opposite parties only to put pressure upon them not to depose freely and fearlessly against the petitioner in that counter case. If some benefits have accrued to the accused persons due to laches and delay on the part of the prosecution, then that is not required to be taken away in a casual manner. 10. In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction at this belated stage, when the trial of the accused persons is fixed for final hearing and disposal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Let the lower court record, received pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court be transmitted to the learned trial court without any unnecessary delay.