Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40046 of 2011 ====================================================== Most. Shanti Devi wife of Late Dil Chand Mandal, resident of village- Chandanpura, PS-Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar and Ors. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. L.K. Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 09-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner being an informant has challenged the order dated 17.10.2011 by which the court below has refused to allow the prosecution to examine the Doctor. In the present case a direction was given by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6539 of 2009 to conclude the trial within two years. On that ground, an application filed [STATUTE] ort which was conducted by Dr. B.D. Prasad who was/is posted at P.M.C.H has been refused. The doctor did not appear to prove postmortem report as he did not receive any summons. When he was contacted, he had shown his inclination to give his evidence after 4th December 2011 due to illness and fracture of his leg. A prayer has been made that as the Doctor is essential witness and for the ends of justice he should be called to give his evidence. The Court below has recorded that direction was given to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40046 of 2011 (4) dt.09-10-2012 2 / 2 2 prosecution to produce the Doctor. The court below has also issued the summons against the Doctor on 13.9.2010 and on 3.12.2010 through the Superintendent of Police, Munger. It has further been recorded that a letter dated 14.2.2011 was also written to the District Magistrate, Munger for the production of the doctor but the prosecution failed to present before the court below and the court below was compelled to close the evidence. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order but for the ends of justice, Doctor should be allowed to be examined in the case, as he is the very vital witness for the prosecution. Accordingly the order of court below is set aside with the direction to the prosecution to examine the doctor. The prosecution is directed to go along with the doctor who had conducted the postmortem on 22.11.2012 or any subsequent date fixed by the court below. The court below will be obliged to take the evidence of the doctor and the defence will have a liberty to cross-examine. If the prosecution will fail to produce the doctor on 22.11.2012, the court below will have liberty to proceed with the case and pass the order in accordance with law. With this limited observation and direction, this case is disposed of. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 311

Statute Text:
Section 311 of the Indian Penal Code. OffencePunishment. Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.