Dismissed

Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC8 May 2014CR. MISC./20196/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an order rejecting a petition for recall of a prosecution witness. The court held that the petition under Section 311 CrPC was filed to delay the trial and no error existed in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC and petition for recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC dismissed.

Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20196 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Smt. Sanyukta Devi, W/O Sachchidanand Singh, resident of VillageMarsaini, P.S-Teghara, District- Begusarai. 2. Navin Kumar, S/O Sri Sadanand Singh, resident of Village- Masaiti, P.STeghra, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Vibhuti Kumar, S/O Sri Jagdish Bihari Singh, R/O Village- Khamhar, P.S- Mufasil, Distt- Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 08-05-2014 The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 23^rd November, 2012 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge-II, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.475 of 2010 by which the application filed by the petitioners for recall of prosecution witness no.1 Sunil Kumar Singh has been rejected.

¶4

It appears from the record that the petitioners are being tried for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid Sessions trial. From the records, it appears that on 19^th August, 2011, prosecution witness no.1 was examined and cross-examined. Thereafter the defense cross-examined him on several dates and ultimately on 15^th December, 2011 he was discharged after cross-examination. Subsequently, an application was filed for recall of the said

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20196 of 2013 (2) dt.08-05-2014

¶6

2/2

¶7

witness on 9^th October, 2012. The application disclosed that some important questions were left to be asked from the said witness and, therefore, prosecution witness no.1 be recalled for further cross-examination. The Court below has rejected the said prayer vide impugned order dated 23^rd November, 2012.

¶8

The power to recall a witness is vested in the Judge under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such power has to be exercised only in case the recall of a witness is found to be essential to the just decision of the case and not otherwise. In the present case, it appears that the defence has filed the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure just in order to delay the trial.

¶9

I find no error in the order impugned. Accordingly,

¶10

the application is dismissed.

¶11

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶12

Sunil/-

Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Taj Vs The State Of Bihar

Sudarshan Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Murlidhar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tija Hawari and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Bhagat Chaudhary Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.