Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 188 (PAT)

Karu Rawani v. State Of Bihar

2012-01-31

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER RAKESH KUMAR, J. Heard Shri Rajeev Nayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradip Narayan Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.12.2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning one of the witness namely Dr. S.P. Singh for his examination as witness in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for just decision in the case, it was necessary to examine Dr. S.P. Singh, who had initially examined the injuries of the deceased. 4. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. In the present case, F.I.R. was lodged on 29.11.2004 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 29.3.2005 for the offence under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and it was numbered as Sessions Trial No.292 of 2005. It further appears from the materials on record that prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused persons was recorded and thereafter, defence had adduced evidence and defence evidence was also closed on 22.10.2011. The defence started its argument which continued on 11.11.2011, 14.11.2011, 15.11.2007, 16.11.2007 and 17.11.2007 and thereafter, on 18.11.2011, petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for summoning the aforesaid doctor. It further appears that at the time prosecution evidence, the prosecution had taken all steps for securing attendance of the said witness, but failed to secure his attendance and as such he could not be examined. Shri Rajeev Nayan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the record, there is no valid service report to show that ever the said doctor was summoned by the concerned court. 5. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had already been examined at length and cross examined and even if the Dr.S.P. Singh is not examined, no serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. 5. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had already been examined at length and cross examined and even if the Dr.S.P. Singh is not examined, no serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. It has also been argued that since argument has already commenced and trial is going to be concluded, the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the defence only and only with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that defence argument has already commenced and continued on several dates and case is of the year 2004, it would not be appropriate to entertain the present petition. Moreover, at the time of argument, the petitioner can take advantage of non examination of the so-called doctor for whose examination, the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed at the stage of argument. 7. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The court below is required to proceed with the case so that case may come to its logical end without any further delay. The petition stands dismissed.