NIRMAL KUMAR RAWANI @ NIRMAL RAWANI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(JHAR)-2014-10-66
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on October 17,2014

Nirmal Kumar Rawani @ Nirmal Rawani Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Jharkhand And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Amitav K.Gupta,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and learned counsel for the State - A.P.P. The present revision is directed against the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoghar in connection with S.C Case No.43 of 2013, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the prosecution for examination of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer has been rejected on the ground that the prosecution has not cited the name of the Investigating Officer and the Dr. Ashok Kumar is not in existence.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating officer, Albinus Indwar, is at present posted as Inspector at Palamau at Daltonganj having mobile No.8084957027, is a material witness and the court was apprised about the transfer of the Investigating Officer from Deoghar to Palamau. It has further been submitted that in the charge-sheet, Dr. A. Kumar has wrongly been mentioned as Dr. Ashok Kumar instead of Dr. Arvind Kumar, who, at the relevant point of time, was posted at Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur, and is at present posted at Ranchi. That the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed for examination of doctor and Investigating Officer as they are the material witnesses, but the trial court without appreciating the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C, has rejected the petition only on the grounds that the name of the Investigating Officer has not been cited and the Dr. Ashok Kumar was never posted at Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur and the petition filed by the prosecution was vague; that the court without ascertaining the veracity of the averments made by the prosecution and without taking steps for securing the attendance of the material witnesses has closed the prosecution evidence and the impugned order is not sustainable for the ends of justice.
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the order impugned has been passed after ascertaining the fact that Dr. Ashok Kumar was never posted in the Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur and the name of the Investigating Officer, Albinus Indwar has not been cited; that the laches and lacuna on the part of prosecution cannot be filled up under Section 311 Cr.PC.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.