Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting his Section 311 Cr.P.C. petition to recall P.W. 7 for questioning on a viral audio clip suggesting he testified under pressure and was absent at the occurrence. The High Court found no ground to interfere and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32379 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2019 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Raushan Kumar Singh @ Tonu Singh @ Roshan Singh, aged about 33 years, M, S/o Late Raj Kumar Singh, R/o Milkee, P.S. - Singhia, Distt. - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
... ... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : M/S. Binay Bhushan Prasad, Rani Shashi Bharti and Swati Kumari, Advocates For the State : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32379 of 2024(3) dt.05-12-2024 2/4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32379 of 2024(3) dt.05-12-2024 3/4
Saroj Sah as he is the brother-in-law. It is further submitted that now the defence wanted to produce the said audio clip before the learned trial court and to be heard in the presence of P.W. 7 Amarjeet Kumar Sah to bring out the truth for better appreciation of the case. The petitioner had filed application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2023 for recalling of Amarjeet Kumar (P.W. 7) before the learned court below but the same was rejected in a mechanical manner merely on the ground that earlier petition filed by the co-accused was rejected on 10.10.2023. It is further submitted that for the ends of justice, it is very much necessary to recall (P.W. 7) Amarjeet Kumar Sah for testing of audio clip in which he was saying that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not present in the village. It is further submitted that earlier the co-accused has filed a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 18.09.2023 to recall (P.W. 7) Amarjeet Kumar Sah which was rejected on 10.10.2023. It is further submitted that total prosecution case is false and baseless and the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case in proper manner. The petitioner has enclosed conversation of an audio clip which was done through mobile between Amarjeet Kumar Sah (P.W.7) and Rajesh Kumar Singh which has been recorded by the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32379 of 2024(3) dt.05-12-2024 4/4
audio clip would be produced at the time of argument. It is further submitted that another video went viral in which the media persons are asking the questions in which reply has been made that neither he has seen the occurrence nor his mother has seen the occurrence and he has no any reason to suspect any one. The said video clip would also be produced at the time of argument.
U.K./- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's rejection of the defence application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W. 7 in view of a viral audio clip warranted interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raushan Kumar Singh @ Tonu Singh @ Roshan Singh
The State of Bihar
Saroj Sahu
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
