PRABIR KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and/or correctness of an order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC -II Jamshedpur in S.T.No. 318 of 1998 by which the prayer of the prosecution for recall of the Informant - P.W.2 for her reexamination was allowed.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the petitioner stood charged under sections 498A/313 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in S.T. No. 318 of 1998 on the written report of the informant P.W.2 Bulla Roy in respect of an alleged occurrence, which took place on 20.8.1998.The informant was produced and examined as P.W.2 but after a long interval the prosecution filed a petition on 29.10.2004 for her re -examination which was allowed by the Trial court on 18.7.2005. However, the prosecution failed to re -examine her within long span of three years. When the matter was reagitated by the prosecution the trial court by the order dated 18.6.2008 disallowed the petition of prosecution for re -examination of the P.W.2 but with certain liberty. The prosecution then filed a separate petition on 17.7.2008 reiterating the earlier prayer for reexamination of P.W.2 Bulla Roy. The trial court after hearing the prosecution and considering the rejoinder of the petitioner accused allowed the petition by the impugned order dated 28.7.2008 granting permission to the prosecution to prove certain documents by reexamining the P.W.2

(3.) THE learned counsel pointed out that subsequent petition was agitated on behalf of the prosecution only with a view to fill in the lacuna of the prosecution case against the procedural law. The prosecution wanted to produce new facts on the record by introducing certain documents and for that prayer was made for re -examination of informant P.W.2 at the fag end of the trial of the husband -petitioner and the trial court grossly erred by allowing such petition which can not be sustained.