IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 1149 of 2007
1. Shambhu Nath Baraik
2. Suresh Prasad Srivastava @ Chhotu
@ Suresh Prasad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.B. Mahata, A.P.P.
-----
10/ 19.02.2009
This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
order dated 17.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-I,
Gumla in S.T. No. 355 of 1995, whereby the prayer, made on behalf of the petitioners
for recalling the witnesses, namely, Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar Jaiswal,
P.W. 11 and Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, for further cross-examination and also for
calling for the register relating to transfer of ownership of Maruti Car bearing No. BR-
14C -9036, was rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitioners
were made accused for committing murder of Ram Sagar Kasera, owner of the vehicle
bearing No. BR-14C -9036, and the driver, Ramu Ram Verma, as they were alleged to
have been seen lastly in the company of the deceased and that there had been dispute
relating to the financing of the said Maruti Car and that when the said car was seized
by the police, it was released in favour of the widow of the deceased, Samundari Devi,
P.W. 5, on furnishing indemnity bond with a condition to produce the same,
whenever required by the court, but these petitioners came to know on 30.12.2003 that
the Maruti Car has been sold by the informant, Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, and
Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, to one Akhilesh Kumar. On getting this information, these
petitioners procured documents from the District Transport Office showing signature
of the deceased- Ram Sagar Kasera over the sale letter and, therefore, a petition was
filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses, namely, Samundari Devi,
P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, P.W. 11 and Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, so that they be
cross-examined as to under what circumstances, the name of the deceased- Ram Sagar
2
Kasera is appearing in the sale letter, when he is said to have been done to death and
in that connection, the document was also sought to be called for from the District
Transport Office, but learned court below rejected the plea though the witnesses need
to be cross-examined for just decision of the case and under that situation, it was
incumbent upon the court in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the witnesses for
their cross-examination and also to call for the register relating to transfer of the
vehicle. Learned counsel in this respect has referred to a decision in the case of Godrej
Pacific Tech. Ltd. Vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. reported in 2008 (4) East Cr. C 247
(SC).
For better appreciation, the case of the prosecution, as has been narrated in
the impugned order, needs to be taken notice of. It appears that these petitioners were
seen going on a Maruti Car bearing No. BR-14C -9036 along with its owner, Ram
Sagar Kasera, and its driver, Ramu Ram Verma. Subsequently, both of them, owner as
well as the driver, were found murdered and the Car was found lying near the dead-
bodies which subsequently was released in favour of widow of the deceased,
Samundari Devi, P.W. 5. However, according to the petitioners, the said Car was sold
to one Akhilesh Kumar through a sale letter over which the signature of the deceased-
Ram Sagar Kasera is there and under this situation, the witnesses were sought to be
recalled for their cross-examination presumably for eliciting answer as to under what
circumstances, the name of the deceased- Ram Sagar Kasera is appearing in the sale
letter who had died.
Admittedly, it is not the case of kidnapping or abduction of the deceased-
Ram Sagar Kasera for the purpose of murder, rather these petitioners were alleged to
have committed murder of both the deceased on the premise that they were last seen
in company of the deceased and moreover, the dead-bodies of both the deceased were
recovered and when autopsy was made, it could be known that the deceased were
strangulated to death and under this situation, no useful purpose would be served by
recalling the witnesses for their cross-examination or for calling for the documents
relating to transfer of the vehicle even if the sale letter does contain signature of the
3
deceased- Ram Sagar Kasera and as such, I do not find substance in the submission
that the witnesses need to be cross-examined for just decision of the case, as the
appearance of signature of the deceased- Ram Sagar Kasera over the documents has
nothing to do with the accusation made against the petitioners and as such, the trial
court has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioners. However, it be stated
that it becomes the duty of the court in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine those
witnesses, as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice, as has been held in
the case referred to above, but here I do find that the purpose for which the witnesses
have been sought to be cross-examined has nothing to do with the accusation made
against the petitioners.
Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this
application stands dismissed.
However, I may say that any comment, made by the trial court regarding
the documents being not genuine, seems to be unwarranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
AKT