IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.306 of 2008 1. Birendra Singh, Son of Mohan Singh. 2. Ram Akbal Singh, Son of Late Jamuna Singh. 3. Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Mohan Singh. All resident of village – Chaon, P.S. – Durgawati, District – Kaimur (Bhabua). ………………. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Jagdish Singh, Son of Badshah Singh, Resident of Village – Chaon, P.S. – Durgawati, District – Kaimur (Bhabua). ………………… Opp. Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Sri Kumar Sunil, Advocate. For the Opp. Party No. 2 :- Sri Pauncham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate. 04/ 30.04.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed for quashing the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Kaimur (Bhabua) by which he has allowed the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C for examining one witness, namely, Dadan Singh in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2001 / 66 of 2005 arising out of Durgawati P.S. Case No. 98 of 199, G.R. No. 850 of 1998. The prosecution has alleged that the accused persons fired causing injury on the leg of the victim and for which charge has been framed under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. However, from perusal of the records, it appears that in this case, the charge was framed after 2 commitment of case. However, it is asserted that the charge was framed four and half years before and the evidence of the prosecution was closed and case was fixed on 20.11.2007 for recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, the petition was filed on 20.11.2007 for opening the prosecution case under Section 311 but the same was rejected on the ground that neither there was name of any witness nor the witness was present and the case was nine years old and several opportunities had been given. However, subsequently again a petition was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C on 19.12.2007 stating therein that the informant was injured by fire arm and was treated in Durgawati Hospital where he was treated and in the case diary the injury report was available. However, due to inadvertence the said injury report has not been shown and hence prayer was made that the said injury report shall be produced. The said petition was filed with the signature of Dadan Singh and after hearing the parties the said petition was allowed. Though a rejoinder was filed that the petition under Section 311 has 3 been filed at a belated stage and the same has been filed with an intention to linger the case and the learned lower court after considering rejoinder as well as the submission of the parties allowed the petition on the ground that earlier in the petition under Section 311 the name of the witness was not given and the petition dated 19.12.2007 has been filed with specific mention of the witness and the witness present in Court at a cost of Rs. 250/- to be paid by the informant to the accused person. However, on submission by the accused persons that they preferred revision against this order and hence the statement of the witness was not recorded and time was granted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned lower court did not take into consideration the fact that the case is lingering since nine years and the charge was framed about four and half years back and allowing the prosecution to prove the injury report is likely to fill a lacuna of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the other side, however, contended that the order should be passed in the interest of justice as there is allegation of assault and injury by 4 firearm and in a case under Section 307 for a just decision of the case, injury report requires to be proved. However, taking into consideration the respective submission of the parties the whole object of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is for allowing the party to adduce the evidence for a just decision of a case. Petition under Section 311 can be allowed to adduce evidence at any stage, even at the stage of the pronouncing of the judgment. However, taking into consideration to the facts and circumstance since there is allegation about the injury by firearm and the injury report though on the record (in the case diary) has not been proved and hence, merely because bringing the fact on record and for bringing a fact on record no prejudice can be said to be caused by the other side as the opposite party will have the opportunity to cross examining the witness. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstance since the injury report have not been proved and a prayer has been made under Section 311 for allowing the party to adduce the injury report on record apparently appears on the face value that it requires in the interest of justice and the justice demands that the injury report on record be proved by the witness to be 5 examined and the opposite party will have to opportunity to cross examine the witness and hence, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused the them. Hence, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. However, since the case is nine years old, the court below is directed to expedite the case for early disposal. This application is disposed of. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)