SARASWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-8-2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G. R. case No. 153 of 1995 corresponding to Gumla P. S. case No. 99 of 1995 whereby an application under Section 311. Cr. P. C. filed by the informant (petitioner) has been rejected.

(3.) For the purpose of deciding the issues in questions in this application, it is not necessary to state the facts in details. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the Fardbeyan of Saraswati Devi the informant (petitioner) a case under Section 498/A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered, in which the police, after Investigation, submitted charge-sheet and ultimately after framing of the charges, the accused persons were facing trial. Against all the eight accused persons the charge under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed on 26-3-1998 and thereafter the prosecution was asked to adduce the evidence. It appears that even after a lapse of about 5 months, no witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution in spite of the facts that eight dates were fixed for producing the prosecution witnesses. On 12-8-1998 on behalf of the prosecution a petition was filed to the effect that since the prosecution witnesses were avoiding the attendance in the Court, therefore, bailable warrant of arrest be issued against them. The prayer was allowed and bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the witnesses Nos. 1 to 4 and the case was fixed on 21-9-1998 for evidence. Even then prosecution failed to produce any witness and the case was adjourned from time to time and after lapse of 11 dates fixed in the case, on 13-12-1999 a petition was filed on behalf of one of the accused persons namely Dal Daman Singh stating that Dal Daman Singh died on 1-12-1999 and thereafter again the case was adjourned times without number and the trial remained pending and ultimately on 11-6-2002 a petition was filed on behalf of the defence that since not a single witness has been produced by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution case be closed. Thereafter the learned trial Court by its order dated 25-7-2002, after hearing the parties, held that in spite of the fact that sufficient opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses and even warrant of arrest was issued but not a single witness was produced by the prosecution. Considering the fact that the case was of the year 1995 and case of the prosecution was closed and a date i.e. 6-8-2002 was fixed for recording the statements of the accused persons. On 6-8-2002 statements of the accused person were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C.