SURYA NARAYAN YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge-1st, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2005/244 of 2005 by which the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) On perusal of the records, it appears that the charge has been framed on 2.9.2006 and since then 11 witnesses have been examined. However, the petitioner, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor have not been examined and the case has been closed by order dated 30.5.2012 and thereafter the statement of the accused persons have been recorded. However, subsequently, a petition was filed on 22.6.2012 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examination of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor and a prayer has been made that the petitioner is ready to get the witnesses examined under a limited period. However, petition has been rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the charge has been framed on 2.9.2006 and thereafter 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and for the evidence of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued on 17.11.2009, 18.3.2010, 24.3.2011, 20.7.2011 and 17.1.2012 through the Superintendent of Police, Supaul but they did not appear and so the case was lodged under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and also on the ground that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the case is not of lacuna and in the interest of justice the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Doctor and the petitioner is required, particularly in view of the fact that the case is water-tight and relied upon a decision delivered in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2002 1 SCC 655. However, it was held that Section 311 empowers the court to summon material witnesses though not summoned as witnesses and to examine or recall and re-examine if their evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 reveals that it is of a very wide amplitude and if there is any negligence, laches or mistakes by not examining material witnesses, the courts function to render just decision by examining such witnesses, at any stage is not, in any way, impaired and in the circumstance allowed the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.