IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3555 of 2025 ------

Satyadeo Ram Dangi @ Satyadeo Mahto, aged about 48 years Son of- Shivnath Mahto Resident of Village – Koyari Tola, Piri, P.O.-

Barkakana, P.S- Patratu, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

For the Petitioner : In Person For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (Through V.C.)

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. Case No.132 of 2007 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No.212 of 2006 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh has closed the evidence of the prosecution, as the prosecution did not produce the witness even after last chance was given to the prosecution to produce the said witness; keeping in view the fact that Sessions Trial is an old case of the year 2007.

3. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the petitioner is the accused of the said Sessions Trial along with a co-accused. It is next submitted that after examination of the Investigating Officer as P.W.10, the doctor was examined as P.W.11 who proved the injury report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer on 15.07.2025 for further cross-examination on the point of injury report. As in spite of several opportunities being given, the prosecution did not produce the said witness being P.W.10 for cross-examination. Ultimately, vide order dated 18.08.2025, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. It is next submitted that the case was fixed to 02.09.2025 for recording of the statement under Section 313 of the accused/petitioner. It is next submitted that it is the rule of the trial that best evidence may be brought on record. It is further submitted that for fair trial, further cross-examination of the Investigating Officer is of utmost importance. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

4. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the trial is of the year 2007. The undisputed fact further remains that the trial court has allowed the petition for further cross-examination of the P.W.10; but even after that if the prosecution because of some reason or other could not produce the witness, the law about the consequence of such conduct of the prosecution, is well settled. It is then submitted that merely because a witness could not be examined, the trial cannot go on endlessly. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 18.08.2025 as even after being provided adequate opportunity to the prosecution by giving last chance, prosecution did not produce the witness; though the prosecution evidence has been closed and the prosecution is not aggrieved by such act. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 18.08.2025. The undisputed fact remains that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh has allowed the petition of the petitioner for further cross-examination of the P.W.10 who is the Investigating Officer of the case, in spite of the direction of the court and after being provided sufficient opportunities, the prosecution did not produce the Invest