Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2017Cr.Rev./799/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Against the order of the Session Court rejecting an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for adducing additional evidence in an appeal under Section 498A IPC, the High Court dismissed the revision. The Court held that the application lacked proper justification despite the petitioner alleging a contradictory witness statement in another case, deeming it an attempt to supplement lacunae.

What did the court decide?

Revision Application dismissed; the impugned order of the District & Sessions Judge is upheld.

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Jharkhand HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2017

¶3

1.Pawan Kumar Khan son of Sri Suresh Khan

¶4

2.Suresh Khan son of Late Gena Lal Khan

¶5

3.Rohit Kumar Khan son of Sri Suresh Khan

¶6

4.Smt. Baby Devi wife of Sri Rohit Kumar Khan

¶7

5.Brij Mohan Khan son of Sri Suresh Khan all are residents of Sidhgora, PO & PS Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East… … Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

… … 2.Durga Devi @ Durga Khan Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Amicus Curiae

¶13

4/12.09.2017 Heard Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 through JHALSA as well as Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

This application is directed against the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge XIII, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 and 391 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶15

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence which the petitioner wants to adduce as additional evidence has a direct bearing on the fate of the case as Anil Kumar Jha who has been examined in this case has also been examined in G. R. No. 2803 of 2008 and he has given an altogether a different version. It has also been stated that the order of learned Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 541 of 2015 is also relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal, but the learned appellate court without considering the said fact has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer and has stated that the petitioner has given

¶17

-2-

¶18

absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners be given opportunity to adduce additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The application preferred by the petitioners under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. does not contain any reason which would justify the learned appellate court to consider such application or the necessity of allowing the petitioners to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

¶19

It appears that Anil Kumar Jha whose evidence in G. R. No. 2803 of 2008 is being sought to be brought on record has already been examined in the present case. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. Absence of any proper reason in the application preferred by the petitioners has rightly been considered by the learned appellate court by refusing to entertain such application. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage has vehemently argued and has stated that Anil Kumar Jha has given an altogether different version in the subsequent criminal case, but such fact cannot be considered as it is merely an attempt made by the petitioner to supplement the lacuna existing in the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

In absence of any reason in the application which would lead to adducing additional evidence on behalf of the petitioners and which has been properly appreciated by the learned appellate court, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶23

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantina Minj Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Naushad Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Most Geeta Alias Mo Geeta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bindeshwari Das Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Khagen Mahato Vs Jugni Devi