Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 90 (JHR)

Gopal Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-12

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : This Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by District & Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 80/2000, corresponding to Trial No.57/2013, whereby and where under he allowed the application filed by the prosecution under section 311 of the Cr. P.C. and directed the prosecution to appear with the witnesses. 2. It appears from the record that in the aforesaid sessions trial, the prosecution had already examined 09(nine) witnesses till 17.07.2008. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution closed on 02.08.2008. It appears from the record that thereafter, on 19.02.2014, an application filed by the prosecution under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examination of some more witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The aforesaid application of the prosecution was allowed vide order dated 03.04.2014. Against the above order this revision application filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while allowing the aforesaid application of the prosecution, learned court below has not given any finding that the evidence of which witness is essential for just decision of the case. It is further submitted that the learned court below had vaguely stated that some important witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. But in the impugned order, it is no where disclosed that the evidence of which evidence essential and important for the just decision of the case. It is further submitted that before closure of the prosecution case, altogether 09(nine) witnesses had already been examined. Under the said circumstance, it is necessary for the prosecution to disclose the names of other witnesses, whose witnesses are essential for the just decision in the case. It is further submitted that since the court below has not given any reason for coming to the conclusion that the examination of some witness is essential for the just decision, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. opposed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the court below has ample power under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to summon any witness at any stage. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. From perusal of the lower court record, I find that till 17.07.2008, the prosecution had examined altogether 09(nine) witnesses. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. From perusal of the lower court record, I find that till 17.07.2008, the prosecution had examined altogether 09(nine) witnesses. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution closed on 02.08.2008 and on that date itself, the statements of the accused persons recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the case is running under the heading "For Argument". All of a sudden, on 19.02.2014, an application filed by the prosecution for examination of some of the witnesses. The said application was allowed by the court below by saying that some important witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. It is true that for the just decision of the case, the court can allow the prosecution to examine some more witnesses. But in the instant case, the learned court below has not disclosed the name of any witness and had also not given any reason as to how such evidence is necessary for just decision in the case. As per Section 311 of the Cr. P.C., it is necessary for the court below to give a finding that examination of any particular witness is essential for the just decision in the case. Since, in this case, name of the witnesses had not been disclosed why his examination is necessary, I find that the order of the learned court below suffers from material illegality and irregularity. Thus, the same cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, I allows this revision application and set aside the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 80/2000, pending in the court of District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda. 8. It appears that the sessions trial is of the year 2000, thus, the learned court below is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Application allowed.