Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the two petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No.139 of 2015 whereby and where under a petition filed at the instance of the prosecution with prayer to allow the prosecution for examination of five new witnesses, has been allowed.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case which is relevant for the proper adjudication of this revision, in short, is that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Md. Miya which was recorded at Sadar Hospital by Sub Inspector of Police, Itkhori P.S. Case No.42 of 2015 was instituted on the allegation that though he is presently residing at village Dariyatu Tola but his ancestral property lies at village Pitiz and he along with other family members had gone for partition of that very land and other properties and while he was fixing wooden pole on his land, the accused persons having Sabal, iron rod, Lathi, spade, stick came there and assaulted the informant and his family members causing head injury to Md. Moin Ansari. When he along with family members tried to save Moin Ansari, accused persons assaulted his son Masoom Ali also causing severe injury in his head where after his son became unconscious. Only thereafter, the accused persons anticipating that the Masoom Ali is dead, left the place. Those injured persons Masoom Ali and Moin Ansari were brought to Itkhori Hospital from where they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag but on way Masoom Ali succumbed to his injury. Md. Moin, another injured was referred to Ranchi for better treatment.
(3.) After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons where after charges were framed and witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and out of eight charge sheet witnesses, prosecution examined six witnesses. Where after a petition under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the prosecution with the prayer to permit the prosecution to examine (i) Samsuddin Mian (ii) Ahmad Mian (iii) Md. Moin (iv) Mobin Mian (v) Md. Taiyab as they were all present at the time of occurrence and they are eye witnesses of the occurrence and one of them Md. Moin had sustained injury and the presence of above witnesses would be clear from the counter case filed at the instance of the accused persons i.e. the present petitioners being Itkhori P.S. Case No.41 of 2015 wherein also the informant of the said case has stated about presence of the above witnesses at the place of occurrence being an eye witness of the occurrence. It is also stated in the petition that the Investigating Officer in collusion with the accused persons did not record the statement of those persons under Section 161 of the Code. As such, for the interest of justice and just decision of the case, the examination of those persons are necessary.;