Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11649 of 2011 ====================================================== Brij Bihari Tiwari @ Brij Bihari Nath Tiwari, son of Jata Shankar Tiwari, Resident of Village- Srikalpur, P.S.- Guthani, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bhrigurashan Mishra, son of Puja Ram Mishra 3. Mritunjay Nath Tiwari, son of Nanhak Tiwari 4. Rajendra Nath Tiwari , son of Dinanath Tiwari 5. Subhash Nath Tiwari 6. Suresh Nath Tiwari 7. Gorakh Nath Tiwari, All are sons of Shivadhar Nath Tiwari 8. Hari Shankar Nath Tiwari , son of Ram Nath Tiwari All residents of Village- Shrikalpur, P.S.- Guthani, District- Siwan .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 4 05-11-2012 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.8 and Sri Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party nos.6 and 7. The petitioner, who is the informant in Guthani P.S. Case No.57 of 1987 registered on 24.09.1987 for the offence under [STATUTE] , Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, has approached this Court , while invoking its Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11649 of 2011 (4) dt.05-11-2012 2 / 4 2 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order 27.12.2010 passed by the learned F.T.C. V, Siwan in Sessions Trial No.242 of 1990. By the said order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening the case and summoning two witnesses i.e. Investigating Officer and Doctor to be examined as prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the ends of justice, it was required on the part of the trial Judge to allow the petition. He submits that the examination of Investigating Officer and the doctor is must for just decision in the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused/ Opp.Parties have opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the case, alleged occurrence had taken place long back in the year 1987 and the case was committed long back in the year 1990. In this case charges were framed in the year 1994. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence had commenced. During trial, several opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce all the witnesses. However, twelve witnesses were examined and the prosecution case was closed in the year 2006. By referring to the impugned order, he submits that all efforts were taken to secure attendance of the Investigating Officer as well as the doctor, which Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11649 of 2011 (4) dt.05-11-2012 3 / 4 3 failed and finally the prosecution evidence was closed. He submits that after completion of all the formalities , arguments in the case had already commenced and thereafter again only with a view to delay the conclusion of trial, a petition was filed for summoning those witnesses , for whom all efforts were taken earlier to secure their attendance, even though they did not appear. He submits that only object of the informant/petitioner is to drag the trial one way or the other and for the said purpose he filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is true that for just decision in a criminal trial , it is necessary to examine the Investigating Officer as well as the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, but only on this very ground , right of speedy trial of the accused cannot be defeated . It is a case, in which occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and finally the prosecution evidence was closed in the year 2006 and, thereafter under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement of accused was recorded .The evidence was closed and during continuance of argument petition was filed. Even after the closure of prosecution evidence twice, petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed but went in vain. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11649 of 2011 (4) dt.05-11-2012 4 / 4 4 After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that interference with the impugned order will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court. The petition stands dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place in the year 1987, the trial court is directed to take all steps, so that case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. In this case on 15.09.2011, this Court had directed for staying the proceeding of Sessions Trial No.242 of 1990 till appearance of Opp.Party nos.2 to 8. In view of dismissal of this petition, interim order of stay dated 15.09.2011 stands automatically vacated. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.