IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3504 of 2025

Sunil Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Jyotindra Poddar, Resident of CIBIL LINE, Nandan Pahar, P.O. –Deoghar, P.S. –Deoghar (T), District

-Deoghar. .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate

: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –IX, Deoghar whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to adduce additional evidence at the

belated stage by obtaining opinion of a handwriting expert.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a convict of G.R.

Case No. 717 of 2011 arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 260 of 2011 for having committed the offences punishable under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and

also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Deoghar, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2020 whereas the co- convict –Dhruv Narain Parihast filed Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2020 against his conviction; for having committed the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner did not examine any defence witness during the trial of the case. The I.O. of the case who was examined as P.W. 25 during the trial, proved the diary of L.I.C. which was seized from the house of the petitioner, which on being proved was marked Material Exhibit –VI and two pages i.e. of date 11th January and 13th February were also marked Exhibit -13. The I.O. has deposed that at the time of the seizure, the signature of petitioner as well as of the co-accused were there on both the pages i.e. of the page of 11th January and the page of 13th February and the petitioner and the co-accused admitted their signature and the I.O. also put his signature on those pages of the said Material Exhibit –VI. The documents were marked Exhibits without objection of the defence. The only relevant question that was asked to the P.W.25 in his cross-examination in respect of these documents is that “The writing is vague on the documents and it cannot be used as promissory note.” The learned appellate court considered the settled principle of law reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 SC 59 that the discretion vested upon the appellate court under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to fill up gaps or lacunae in the prosecution evidence. The learned appellate court also considered the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibulla Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 wherein it was observed that where in a case, it appears that the material evidence was not produced due to inadvertence and the same is necessary for just conclusion of the case, the court may exercise power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. The learned appellate court below also considered that though ample opportunity was there, for the appellant to raise his grievance, with respect to the signature and writing in the documents which were proved during the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, during the cross-examination of such prosecution witness and even after recording the statement under Section 313 of