CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Md. Alam Khan @ Md. Alam vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 20 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 JCR 265

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dilip kumar sinha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311, 317 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P. No. 1375 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 435 words

D.K. Sinha, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 637 of 2007 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-VI, Ranchi by which a petition filed on his behalf u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure for recall of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Mamta Kumari for her further cross examination was rejected.

2.

The Petitioner is facing charge u/s 376 I.P.C.

3.

Learned Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was examined on behalf of the prosecution and cross examined at length, who on account of inadvertence of the defence Counsel certain relevant questions could not be put to her and for that the Petitioner has been prejudiced. The Petitioner wants that certain limited question should be put to her and the sample of the questions was given in the petition, which was filed before the Trial Judge (Annexure-2) but the petition u/s 311 was rejected with the observation,

Applying above position of law in the fact of the instant case, I find that all the questions which has been framed in para 34 and other paragraphs of the petition, stood well rephed and covered in para 13,14,16,22,23,25,26,27,28 and 29 of the cross examination of P.W. 1 informant/prosecutrix/victim. There is not a single question, as framed in the petition which requires further corss examination of the prosecutrix P.W. 1, who originally belong to Nepal. Learned Addl. P.P. is correct with the submission that P.W. 1 has been extensively cross examined in as many as 31 paragraphs extending to two years continuity. After going through the petition and also deposition of P.W. 1 this Court does not find any reason to recall P.W. 1 as all the questions posed in the petition are already replied in the extensive cross examination of the witness. In result, I do not find any merit in the petition u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the accused which is rejected.

In view of the fact that judgment of the case has been adjourned twice due to representation filed by the accused u/s 317 Code of Criminal Procedure for one reason or another. Put up on 14.10.09 for judgment.

4.

I have carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the Trial Judge and I do not find any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference. Accordingly, this petition is rejected.

5.

The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner with the request for early hearing of this petition.

6.

This petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed above.