Dismissed

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./1565/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging a Sessions Court order rejecting a defence petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, the High Court found no illegality. The Court held that since witnesses were discharged after full cross-examination, the defence cannot fill lacunae created by their own omission.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Application dismissed without cost.

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No.1565 of 2017

¶3

Biresh Chandra Pathak@ Bidesh Chandra Pathak

¶4

Sushil Kumar Singh @ Sinha @ Sunil Kumar Sinha

¶5

Ram Maurya

¶6

Alok Kumar Sinha @ Ashok Kumar Sinha

¶7

Brahmeshwar Singh @ Parmeshwar Singh

¶8

Ram Udgar Yadav

¶9

Sahru Pradhan ... Petitioners -Versus-

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Chanchala Devi

¶12

Chandmala Devi … Opposite Parties

¶13

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶14

------For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Adv For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. For the O.P Nos.2 &3 : None

¶15

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

Order No.16 Dated 16^th March, 2023

¶18

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by challenging the order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.95 of 2015, arising out Mandu P.S. Case No.107 of 2012, corresponding to G.R No.1187 of 2012, instituted for the offences under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by which, the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C by the defence side, has been rejected.

¶19

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate assisted by Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Mahua Palit, learned counsel for the State.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief is that, as per the First Information Report lodged by the Informant (now deceased) and the Informant had claimed that five employees of Welfare & Security Department of M/s. Tata Steel Limited on 13.04.2012 had arrived in the Community

¶21

¶22

Hall and had started assaulting him and the family members of the deceased and pressed the neck of one Jagat Narain Pandey and due to which, he has died.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 22.04.2017, by which, they have claimed to recall the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 for their further cross-examination. It is further submitted that due to inadvertence, some important questions to arrive at the truth, could not have been put before the witnesses and the aspects were inadvertently missed out. It is further submitted that defence could not interrogate regarding the assault, injuries and manner of assault allegedly sustained by the deceased and vital questions and suggestions, regarding the individual roles and allegation, could not have been put by the defence to the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution on the last date of hearing i.e, on 20.03.2017. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the victim and the family members of the deceased were being asked to vacate the Community Hall and there is no such incident, to throttle the neck of the deceased had taken place. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the Informant, at the instance of vested interest. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has committed illegality by rejecting the prayer of the petitioners as the learned Court below while exercising the power of under Section 311 of Cr.P.C could have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner for further crossexamine them on the point of occurrence and assault and which could not be asked during their cross-examination and due to inadvertence of the learned defense counsel at the relevant time.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward the submission that the learned Court below has allowed the petition filed

¶25

¶26

under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by the prosecution on the date of passing of the judgment and as such, the impugned order may be set-aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is further submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were thoroughly cross-examined by the learned defence counsel at the relevant time.

¶28

Perused the records of this case and impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the learned Court below has allowed the prayer of the prosecution on the date of passing of the judgment on the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C as the same is the subsequent matter and it may be challenged before an Appropriate Forum on behalf of the petititoners.

¶29

It transpires that the FIR was lodged on 14.04.2012 by one Vikram Pandey against the Mangement of the Ms.Tata Steel Limited for causing death of one employee of the deceased. It further transpires that during the pendency of the trial the prosecution has examined several witnesses and deposition of three witnesses have been enclosed in this Criminal Revision Application.

¶30

From perusal of the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C, which is enclosed as Annexure-4 of this Criminal Revision Application, it appears a plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that due to inadvertence, some important questions could not be put before the witnesses and it has also been stated that defence want to cross-examine on the point of assault, injuries and manner of assaul, which could not be asked earlier.

¶31

From perusal of the certified copy of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it would appear that P.W.2 namely, Chanchala Devi and P.W.3

¶32

¶33

namely, Chandmala Devi are ladies and were cross-examined and discharged on 20.03.2017 & 20.03.2017 respectively.

¶34

Thus, it is evident that P.W and P.W.3 were discharged on 12.03.2017, after their full cross-examination and even if, certain important question were not put forward to them as the same may be latches and on the omission on the part of the defence and as such, the petitioners cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna, if they failed to point out certain question to them.

¶35

In view of the above, I find that no illegality has committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application No.1565 of 2017 is dismissed but without cost.

¶37

( Sanjay Prasad, J .)

¶38

Raja/-

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar  Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand