- (1.) HEARED the parties.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 17/06/2008, the trial court has rejected the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution for examination of two charge sheeted eye-witnesses namely, Shweta Verma and Rohit Yashvardhan mainly on three grounds:- (i) As per the High Court's direction the trial has to be concluded within a prescribed period of time but due to latches on the part of the prosecution the disposal of the trial is being delayed. (ii) Earlier also the prosecution was allowed to examine the witnesses namely Shweta Verma and Shilpi Verma but only the evidence of Shilpi Verma was recorded and Sweta Verma did not appear to depose. (iii) And now when the final argument of the case was fixed on 17/06/2008 with the consent of both the parties then on that day a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was filed for examination of two witnesses therefore, the balance of interest of justice leans to infer that the case must be concluded without allowing the prosecution any further time for recording evidence of any prosecution witness. In order to appreciate the real issue, the background of the case is required to be noticed. A practicing Advocate of Siwan (Bihar) namely Raghuveer Sharan Verma and his wife Madhu Verma were allegedly brutally murdered by the accused persons because of the fact the deceased Raghuveer Sharan Verma, Advocate, refused to compromise the case in which the accused persons were being prosecuted for committing the murder of his son Sumeet Harshvardhan. The F.I.R. in this case was registered, the case was investigated and the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and the trial started against accused persons at the Sessions Court at Siwan in the State of Bihar. On an application made by the petitioner, the Supreme Court, transferred the trial by order dated 11/02/2002 from Bihar to Jharkhand since the family members and other witnesses in the said Sessions Trial were being threatened by the accused persons consistently with dire consequences if they deposed in the case against the accused persons. The Sessions trial was transferred to the Court of Sri B.M.Singh on 06/04/2002. Charges were framed on 23/07/2004 and the evidence in the case was started on 04/12/2006. However, the trial remained pending on account of the transfer of the Presiding Officer and also on account of the abscondence of the accused Md. Guddu. Subsequently, the trial of Md. Guddu was separated on 14/09/2007 and the case was fixed for further evidence on 21/09/2007. The trial could not proceed further since the Presiding officer was again transferred and, ultimately, the case was transferred to the Court of Sri B.Jha Praveer, A.J.C., Ranchi, who received the record on 12/12/2007 and posted the case for evidence on the very next day, i.e. on 13/12/2007 and passed an order that if on 07/01/2008 no PW would appear the case of the prosecution would be closed. However, on the next dates, i.e. 07/01/2008 and 08/01/2008, no witnesses could be examined since no witness was present but on 09/01/2008, the Investigating Officer of the case was examined and then on 10/01/2008 the evidence was closed and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by fixing 21/01/2008 for final argument. On the said date, i.e. 21/01/2008, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution for examination of two charge sheeted eye-witnesses namely, Shilpi Verma and Shweta Verma, which was allowed by the Court. Shilpi Verma was examined and cross-examined and, thereafter, she was discharged on 15/03/2008. Though another witness Shweta Verma had also filed her attendance on 14/03/2008 but her evidence could not be recorded since cross-examination of the other witness Shilpi Verma could not be completed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, since Shweta Verma and her younger brother Rohit Yashvardhan, both charge sheeted eyewitnesses were getting serious threats at the hands of the accused persons and, therefore, the P.P. Incharge wrote to D.G.P., Bihar to provide adequate security to them so that they can give their evidence at Ranchi. The petitioner alleges that since adequate security was not provided to the witnesses and, therefore, they were not able to come to Ranchi to depose.;