IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Musafir Singh S/o Late Dunilal Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 62769 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. witnesses’ depositions and their credibility (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. request to recall witnesses based on media statements (Para 8) |
| 4. legal authority and discretion under section 311 (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidentiary value and procedural compliance. (Para 11) |
| 6. admissibility of electronic evidence under section 65-b (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. concluding order of the court (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Madhubani in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No.67 of 2021 dated 29.03.2021 corresponding to ST No.211 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT , whereby the learned trial court has rejected the petition for recall of the prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination.
2. The brief case of prosecution, as per version of the informant, namely, Ramnarayan Singh, that on 29.03.2021 at about 1:00 PM at the distance of about 100- 150 meters towards northern direction from his house, he heard sound of gun-shots and noise of the people and when he ran towards that direction, near the house of one Rudra Narayan Das, he saw Musafir Singh (petitioner no.1), Bhav Narayan Jha and Ghanshyam Jha giving orders to the accused persons, upon which, Praveen Jha and Naveen Jha shot at his nephew of the deceased, namely, Rana Pratap Singh, who fell down and, thereafter, one Shiveshwar Bharti alias Ful Babu tore his stomach through ‘Bhujali’. It is further alleged that Chandan Jha, Kaushik Singh (petitioner no.2), Baban Singh, Munna Singh and Jhuna Singh fired indiscriminately with their pistols at his another nephew, namely, Birendra Singh @ Biru Singh, who was badly injured. It is further alleged that Bhola Singh, Kamlesh Singh (petitioner no.2), Manoj Jha, Sujeet Singh and Vimlesh Singh fired individually upon his nephew, namely, Ranvijay Singh and also assaulted him with iron pipe due to which, he sustained injuries and thereafter, he died on the spot. It is further alleged that Amarjeet Jha, Ashok Singh, Manoj Singh, Umesh Singh and Mukesh Safi fired individually with their pistols at his nephew, namely, Amrendra Singh and also assaulted him with iron pipe as a result of which, he also sustained injuries. It is further alleged that Sujay Safi, Prashant Jha, Vishwajeet Kumar, Anant Choudhary and Ankit Jha assaulted his son, namely, Manoj Singh with pistol, iron rod and iron pipe due to which, he also received injuries. The injured were brought to Benipatti hospital and all were referred to the hospitals, where during course of treatment, Biru Singh died and two persons had already died on the spot. The informant further stated that he has came to know that other co-accused persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar Jha, Shobha Kant Mehta, Rishikesh Jha @ Raja, Abhishek Kumar, Devendra Nath Thakur and Sunaina Devi were assembled at the house of his co-villager, namely, Ashok Singh and planned a conspiracy and managed the arms and thereafter, committed the crime.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement of the informant, Benipatti P.S. Case No.67 of 2021 dated 29.03.2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and thereafter , the police started investigation of this case.
4. During the trial, three prosecution witnesses were examined. On 22.04.2024, examination-in-chief of witness, namely, Vivek Kumar Singh was concluded, on 31.05.2024, examination-in-chief of witness, Khusboo Kumari was concluded and finally on 09.07.2024, examination-in-chief of witness, Surya Narayan Singh was completed and the
The court reiterated the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses for justice, emphasizing that electronic evidence requires certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act....
Power under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses is wide, exercisable at any stage if essential for just decision; prosecutorial oversight in not showing material objects earlier is correctable, not ....
The power to recall witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC is essential for ensuring justice, especially when contradictions arise in testimonies.
The rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.
Point of Law : Discretion given by the first part is very wide and its very width requires a corresponding caution on the part of the court. But the second part does not allow any discretion; it bind....
The power to recall witnesses is a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly for the ends of justice. It cannot be invoked to fill lacunae in the prosecution or defense case or to provide an unfa....
The court upheld that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows recall of witnesses only when essential for justice, emphasizing the need for strong justification for such applications.
The court established that the power under Section 311 CrPC to summon or recall witnesses is essential for ensuring a just decision in criminal trials, and must be exercised with caution to avoid pre....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.