A trial court may examine the Investigating Officer before all charge-sheeted witnesses if the case is old and the officer's attendance is difficult to obtain, prioritizing the quality of evidence over the number of witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing the deposition dated 30.09.2024 recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. Case No.538 of 2019 arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.98 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 30.09.2024, one of the accused persons of the case was produced from custody. The attendance of the Investigating Officer was filed who has been examined as PW-9. During his examination-in- chief, he had proved several documents which have been marked exhibits. Because of paucity of time, the case was adjourned and the examination-in-chief has not yet been concluded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Barun Pandit vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 2803 and submits that in para-4(b) therein, the Division Bench of this Court had opined that the Investigating Officer should be examined as far as possible as the last witness. So, the omission, improvement and contradiction would be drawn attention of the Investigating Officer of the case. It is next submitted that hence, the trial court ought to have waited for examination of all the charge-sheeted witnesses before recording the evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned deposition dated 30.09.2024 is not in accordance with the settled principle of law and the same be set aside and the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition be allowed.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General-III appearing for the State submits that there are altogether thirteen persons cited as witnesses in para-13 of the charge-sheet. Out of whom, undisputedly eight have been examined including one doctor. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness cited in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that it is also a settled principle of law that the quantity of the evidence does not matter and what matters is the quality of evidence. It is also submitted that it is common knowledge that once a police officer, who is Investigating Officer of the case, superannuates from his service, it is very difficult to procure his attendance. Undisputedly, the case is more than five years old. The age of the Investigating Officer is 60 years as mentioned in his deposition, the certified copy of which has been annexed with this Writ Petition at Annexure-4, page Nos.37 to 39. It is next submitted that under such circumstances no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in recording the deposition of the PW-9. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that no doubt, it is desirable that the Investigating Officer of the case should be examined as far as possible as the last witness so that the omission, improvement and contradiction could be drawn attention of the Investigating Officer by the defence. In any criminal case, after framing of charge, the trial court must fix the case, consecutively for a series of dates for recording of the evidence of the witnesses. The number of days to which the case will be listed consecutively depends upon the number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet and the ability of the court to examine a particular number of witnesses in a day, keeping in view the other assignments of that court. It is desirable that the trial court must examine the victim, eye-witnesses to the