Allowed

Gulam Rabbani v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Apr 2014CR. MISC./29178/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the lower court's rejection of the prosecution's prayer to examine two witnesses. The Court held that since the witnesses' names were disclosed during the victim's statements under Cr.P.C. Sections 161 and 164, they had a right to be examined, and thus remitted the matter to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.04.2009 was set aside, and the prosecution was directed to examine witnesses Aminul Haque and Maqubul Hussain.

Gulam Rabbani Vs State of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29178 of 2009

¶2

====================================================== Gulam Rabbani, son of Md. Hassan, resident of village- Lagua, Police Station –Abadpur, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shankar Das, son of Sri Banmali Das 3. Banmali Das, son of Late Kisto Das 4. Aloka Daso, wife of Sri Banmali Das All residents of village- Lagua, Police Station-Abadpur, District- Katihar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Ambastha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -----------------9 01-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 4.

¶3

The present petition has been filed by the informant of Sessions Trial No. 554 of 2007 against an order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the informant for examination of witnesses, namely, Aminul Haque and Maqubul Hussain as prosecution witnesses. The prayer was made by the petitioner, which has been rejected by order dated 17.04.2009. The said order is under challenge.

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29178 of 2009 (9) dt.01-04-2014

¶5

2 / 4

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the ends of justice, it was required to allow the petition filed by the prosecution for examining the aforesaid two persons as witnesses in the present case. However, the learned trial court on the basis of objection filed by defence side has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that two persons, who were sought to be examined as prosecution witnesses, were not cited as witness in the chargesheet, but their names were disclosed by the victim in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been stated that while the victim was illegally confined by accused persons at Jalandhar, her two brothers , namely, Aminul Haque and Maqubul Hussain arrived there and , thereafter, she could be saved. Accordingly, it has been stated that examination of those persons are necessary for just decision in the matter.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 4 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petition for examination of the persons as prosecution witnesses was filed only and only with a view to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case, which is not permissible in the eye of law. He

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29178 of 2009 (9) dt.01-04-2014

¶9

3 / 4

¶10

further submits that before the court below a detailed rejoinder was filed by the defence side and learned trial judge has rightly rejected the prayer of the prosecution.

¶11

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material available on record. It appears that the Sessions Trial No.554 of 2007 arises out of Abadpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2006 registered under Sections 363/366/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was added. During the trial, a petition was filed by the prosecution to examine two persons, namely, Aminul Haque and Maqubul Hussain as prosecution witnesses. It is true that those persons were not cited as witnesses in the chargesheet, but fact remains that the victim had categorically disclosed the name of those persons in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been accepted by the learned counsel for Opp.Party nos. 2 to 4 that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police also she had disclosed this fact. Once the name of those persons had come during investigation, it’s hardly matter whether they were cited as witness or not, in view of the fact that recovery of the victim was affected only on arrival of the aforesaid two persons. The Court is of the opinion that it was necessary to allow the petition for examining those persons, named therein, as

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29178 of 2009 (9) dt.01-04-2014

¶13

4 / 4

¶14

prosecution witnesses. Moreover, it was necessary for the ends of justice to examine those persons. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 17.04.2009 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court to allow the prosecution to examine the aforesaid two persons, namely, Aminul Haque and Maqubul Hussain, as was prayed in the petition filed by the prosecution, to be examined as prosecution witnesses.

¶15

The petition stands allowed.

¶16

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶17

NKS/-

Gulam Rabbani v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Rabbani v. State of Bihar 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

Rampati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Jayant Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Sri Kant Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Dharmendra Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Indrasan Bari and Ors. Vs Balkeshi Devi and Ors.

Bibi Rani and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.