Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42834 of 2009 ====================================================== Chandramani Prasad S/O Late Dukhi Prasad, resident of Village-Bishunpur, P.S. Chandi, District-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ram Janam Mahto S/O Dukhi Mahto 3. Nandu Mahto 4. Nakul Mahto 5. Tuneshwar Mahto, All sons of Ram Jatan Mahto ( Accused), all residents of Village- Bishunpur, P.S. Chandi, District-Nalanda .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------- 2 20-03-2012 Heard Sri Abhinay Raj, learned counsel for the informant/petitioner, Sri N.N.Tiwary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Mukul Prasad, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 5/accused persons. The present petition has been filed with a prayer set aside the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Hilsa in Sessions Trial No.148/92. By the said order, learned trial court has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, important witnesses have not been examined and for just decision of the case, it was necessary to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence. However, learned trial court has rejected the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42834 of 2009 (2) dt.20-03-2012 2 / 3 2 same. Sri Mukul Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused persons/Opp.Party nos.2 to 5 submits that the case i.e. Chandi P.S. Case No. 273 of 1991 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . The occurrence in the case had taken place on 09.08.1991. While referring to the impugned order dated 17.11.2009, it was submitted by Sri Mukul Prasad, learned counsel for Opp.Party nos. 2 to 5 that after submission of chargesheet, the case was committed to the court of Session in the year 1992 and finally charges could be framed in the year 2004 and thereafter, learned court below had taken all steps for securing attendance of the witnesses, but the prosecution were not taking any interest. Learned court below for securing attendance of the witnesses had even passed order for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. Reminders were also issued. Anyhow, few witnesses could be examined and finally case of the prosecution was closed in the year 2007. However, on the prayer made by the prosecution, the case was re-opened on 15.01.2008 and opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce witnesses. Again the prosecution proceeded in lethargic manner and was not producing witnesses regularly. After granting several indulgences, on second occasion Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42834 of 2009 (2) dt.20-03-2012 3 / 3 3 on 12.11.2009 the prosecution evidence was closed and statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were got recorded. Thereafter, a petition was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the witnesses. In this case, till the date of closure of prosecution evidence, five witnesses were examined. Learned court below keeping in view the fact that the case was of the year 1991 and several indulgences were granted to the prosecution for producing the witnesses , the prosecution has not rendered proper assistance to the court and, as such, learned trial court had closed the prosecution evidence and , thereafter, statements of accused persons were got recorded. After going through the impugned order and keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place long back in the year 1991 and thereafter once indulgence was granted and case was re- opened, the Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court on second occasion has rightly refused the prayer of the prosecution. The order impugned requires no interference. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.