- (1.) 4/4.5.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.1.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge 1st, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No.235 of 2010, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examining the witnesses, who had been named in the evidence of the informant, has been allowed by the Court below. It appears that the petitioner has been made accused in Sakchi P.S. Case No.56 of 2010, G.R. No.565 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The case relates to murder of the brother of the informant. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was brought to his house in unconscious condition. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. It appears from the FIR that the informant thereafter went to Sakchi bus stand, where he was informed that the deceased had been assaulted there by the petitioner and the other persons and accordingly, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. It appears that after submission of the charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken against the petitioner and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The petitioner was facing the trial in the Court below and the prosecution witnesses were examined in trial. Only two witnesses remained to be examined, whom the prosecution did not want to examine, rather the prosecution filed an application for examining the witnesses who had been named in the evidence of the informant. It is apparent from the FIR and the impugned order that these witnesses were not named by the informant either in the FIR or before the investigating officer. The investigating officer, who had already been examined as -2- PW - 10, had clearly stated that all the eye witnesses had been named as the charge-sheet witnesses. The evidence of the informant has also been brought on record as Annexure - 2 to this application, wherein in para 5 and 6, the informant has only stated that he came out from the house when the deceased was brought at the house. His family members, named by him, also came out of the house and neighbours named by him, were also present outside his house. Prosecution has filed application to examine these witnesses who have been named in para 5 and 6 of the evidence of the informant. It is apparent that the place of occurrence is not near the house of the informant, rather the place of occurrence is Sakchi bus stand and as such, the presence of these persons near the house of the petitioner is not going to make any difference in the case.
(3.) BE that as it may. Since these witnesses were not named by the informant in the FIR, not these witnesses were named before the I.O. and these witnesses were not the charge-sheet witness, I do not find any reason for allowing the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examining these witnesses. It appears that these witnesses are sought to be examined only to fill up the lacuna, as the charge-sheet witnesses examined so far, had not supported the prosecution case, as it appears from the impugned order itself. This action of the prosecution cannot be allowed to be continued and the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As such, the impugned order dated 20.1.2012 passed in S.T. No.235 of 2010, by the learned Sessions Judge 1st, Jamshedpur, allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby, set-aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible. This application is accordingly, allowed.;