Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 607 (JHR)

Md. Wazid v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-28

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Shubham Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in S.T. No. 350 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioners on 13.02.2015 and 25.05.2015 has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some documents which have been prayed for in the petitions dated 13.02.2015 and 25.05.2015 are necessary for proving the innocence of the petitioners as the entire case of the petitioners is based on the said documents. It has been stated that the petitioners had prayed for calling for the register form of Shirdi Sai Hospital and, Research Centre, Ranchi as well as the original documents with respect to making payment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Policy to one Lailoon Khatoon. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Section 233, CrPC it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to call for the documents as has been prayed for by the defence so that substantial justice is meted out to the defence. Learned counsel submits that in the order dated 23.11.2016 none of the petitions as referred to above have been properly considered as the same has been rejected only on the ground of attempt made by the defence to delay the completion of trial. It has also been stated that the prosecution had taken seven years to conclude its evidence and, therefore, it cannot be said that on account of defence the trial has been delayed. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that two separate petitions were filed by the petitioners with respect to calling for the documents from Shirdi Sai Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi as well as from the office of the Life Insurance Corporation, of India. The first application of the petitioners with respect to the register form of Shirdi Sai Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi has been rejected on the ground that the doctor who had referred the deceased to RIMS, Ranchi had been examined and the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of Md. Farid had also been examined. In view of the fact that the death of Md. Farid had also been examined. In view of the fact that the death of Md. Farid has been established by the evidence of the witnesses the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners for calling for the register form from Shirdi Sai Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi. So far as the second contention of the defence with respect to calling for the original application of the payment of Life Insurance Corporation Policy in the name of the deceased Md. Farid had been made to his wife Lailoon Khatoon the learned trial Court had considered the fact that neither any certified or true copies of the document was produced or any efforts were made to obtain the same from the Life Insurance Corporation Office by the defence. The learned trial Court had also considered the facts that the trial is of the year 2007 and the application which has been filed by the defence was only to delay the disposal of the trial. 6. It appears from the application so filed that the petitioners in spite of having sufficient opportunity had never made such plea and only on the pretext that the prosecution had taken almost seven years for examination of witnesses the point of delay is sought to be countered upon but as would be evident from the application filed by the petitioners the same seems to be concentrated on delaying the trial. 7. Apart from the delaying tactic which has been considered by the learned trial Court the other facets of the application have also been considered and which has been discussed above. Such circumstance, therefore, having rightly been considered by the learned trial Court no reasons exist to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Application dismissed.