Dismissed

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

Patna HC24 Aug 2017CR. REV./173/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition in parallel criminal trials. It held that the trial court correctly rejected prayers to strike off specific witnesses and affirmed the court's power to correct witness seriatim before judgment.

What did the court decide?

The application for setting aside the impugned order was disposed of by rejecting the petitioner's grievances regarding witnesses and trial proceedings.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.173 of 2016

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- AURANGABAD

¶4

=========================================================== Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Saryu Dubey, Resident of Village- Sansa, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Parasar Dubey, S/o Late Rajeshwar Dubey, Resident of Village- Goh, Gola Par, P.S.- Goh, District- Aurangabad.

¶8

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-08-2017

¶9

The petitioner has filed this application for setting aside order dated 10.12.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2015, arising out of Daudnagar P.S. Case No.0108 of 1993, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner dated 22.08.2015 was dismissed.

¶10

Brief background of the case is that the petitioner lodged a police case being Daudnagar P.S. Case No.0108 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act against the sole accused Parasar Dubey. The police on completion of investigation, not finding the involvement of Parasar Dubey, did not send him for trial rather found evidence against one Ramanuj Dubey, accordingly charge-sheeted him. Later on the informant filed a petition and treating it as a complaint, another trial for the same

¶11

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2016 dt.24-08-2017

¶12

2 /3

¶13

offence is also going on in which the accused is Parasar Dubey. Later on a petition was filed by accused Ramanuj Dubey to separate his case from Parasar Dubey and by order dated 13.06.2001 the Sessions Court relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 169 S.C. conducting the trial of both the accused separately but simultaneously and the judgment is to be pronounced on the same day and in view of the guideline two different prosecutors are conducting the case from the prosecution.

¶14

Now the grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of police case Sessions Trial No.187 of 2015 as well as Sessions Trial No.69 of 2013 is proceeding simultaneously. In the police case in which Ramanuj Dubey is facing trial, the witnesses are being produced by the prosecution as per the list of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet but the objection of the petitioner-informant is that in fact they are defence witnesses and they should not be examined and out of which one witness, namely, Parshuram Singh, who has been examined as PW3, his evidence should be struck off merely on the ground that this witness is in fact not a prosecution witness.

¶15

The learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer. The witnesses are produced by the prosecution side considering the list of witnesses submitted with the charge-sheet in this case. The responsibility of producing the witness lies on the prosecution side

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2016 dt.24-08-2017

¶17

3 /3

¶18

whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is admissible or reliable or has turned hostile will be considered at the time of passing the judgment after appraisal of the evidence in totality. Second objection is that there is some error in the seriatim of the witnesses, the same may be corrected at any time before passing of the judgment, which requires to be corrected by the court at the first opportune moment. Accordingly, the necessary correction regarding seriatim of witnesses will be done by the trial court. As far as strucking off the evidence of Parshuram Singh (PW3) is concerned, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the court.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, this application is

disposed of.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	30.08.2017
Transmission Date	30.08.2017

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs Kundan Kumari @ Kanchan Singh

Manju Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mohammad Mansoor Alam Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Raju Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar