IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15561 of 2010 RAGHUBIR PRASAD SINGH SON OF RAMCHANDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE METHAURA, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI ….. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, A.P.P. --------- 3. 13.1.2011 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3 in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2009, by which he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the State for re-examination of Juhi Kumari as a prosecution witness. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the witness has been discharged without testing her intelligence, which is apparent from the evidence enclosed herewith. On the other hand, the Counsel for the accused submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1842 (Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of A.P.) at paragraph 9 had concluded that whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the Trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence and said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. However, in my view, this case supports the 2 contention of the petitioner since it has been held that some sort of an examination was to be done so that the understanding of the witness and his intelligence was disclosed which does not seem to have been done in the present case. In view of such, the matter is remanded to the trial court to once again test the witness as to whether she is capable of understanding her obligation or not. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )