The powers under section 311 CR.P.C. must be invoked to determine the truth and render a just decision after obtaining proper proof of the facts necessitating allowing of an application under section 311 Cr.P.C.

Heard Shri A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. S.K. Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. In this application, the prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the order dated 20.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.7/2000, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was rejected.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.7.1998, the deceased-Binod Singh was traveling on an ambassador car, which was being driven by Manu Ansari and it is said that when they reached near Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Katras, three persons in a Maruti Van reached there and fired at Binod Singh and thereafter fled away. It was also alleged that two accused persons could be identified and the informant claimed that both the named accused persons along with Bachha Singh (petitioner no. 1) had hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased-Binod Singh.

After investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the police on 16.09.1998 against the accused persons under sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and upon submission of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken for the offences mentioned above by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

4. It appears that since the Deputy Inspector General of Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.) had come to the conclusion that the investigation into the offence was not properly conducted by the police, as such vide Memo No. 2838/C dated 23.10.1999, the investigation of the case was handed over to the C.I.D. However, the C.I.D. closed the investigation finding that the District Police had submitted final form after proper enquiry. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2000 and subsequent thereto charge was framed on 23.04.2004 and on examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 22.05.2012.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth, Dhanbad by submitting that since the C.I.D. had also conducted an investigation pursuant to the order of the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.D., as such for a just decision of the case, it is necessary to examine Shri J.P. Mallick, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., who had conducted the investigation and therefore the application preferred by the petitioners under section 311 of Cr.P.C. should have been allowed by the learned trial court. He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer of C.I.D. had submitted the closure report showing the case as untrue against the petitioners and as such the examination of the Investigating Officer is absolutely necessary to arrive at a correct conclusion. He has also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer of C.I.D., who had conducted the investigation in the present case is a material witness and his non examination will greatly prejudice the petitioners.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that the second part of the provision mandates the court to summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case and therefore he submits that it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to allow the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. of the petitioners since the evidence of the Investigating Officer of C.I.D. is essential to the just decision of the case.

7. Augmenting his argument, leaned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have been reported in 2008(2) SCC 383, 1990