Parbat Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Milap Chandra Jain, J.—This is a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated December 17, 1992 by which he has dismissed the application of the Public Prosecutor moved u/s 311, Cr.P.C. for the examination of the investigating officer Karan Raj in sessions case No. 63/91-State v. Jalam Singh and Ors. u/s 302, 307, 325 and 323, I.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.

For the first time, summons were issued to the investigating officer Karari Raj for May 27, 1992. Thereafter, 6.6.92, 20.6.92, 15.7.92, 5.8.92, 19.8.92, 2.9.92, 14.9.92, 29.9.92, 13.10.92, 30.10.92, 11.11.92, 18.11.92 and 26.11.92 were fixed in the case for his evidence. When he was not produced on November 26, 1992, the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, an application u/s 311, Cr.P.C. was moved by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that Karan Raj could not be produced earlier as he had retired, his address could not be known earlier and now his address is known. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the parties, the application was dismissed by order dated December 17, 1992.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant petitioner that investigating officer Karan Raj is a very material witness in the case, he registered the FIR, prepared the site inspection memo and site plan, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses u/s 161, Cr.P.C. and recoveries were effected on the basis of the information given by the accused persons and recorded by him u/s 27, Evidence Act. He further contended that under second part of Section 311, Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence of the investigating officer Karan Raj is essential for the just decision of the case and the learned Sessions Judge did not deal with this aspect of the matter in his order under challenge.

In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-non-petitioner that the complainant petitioner has no locus standi in this case, 14 dates were fixed in the case for recording the statement of the investigating officer Karan Raj, by moving the said application u/s 311, Cr.P.C. the Public Prosecutor wanted to fill up the lacunas which crept in the prosecution evidence and Karan Raj could have been produced if genuine efforts would have been made earlier for his production.

It is correct that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding on the point whether the evidence of the investigating officer Karan Raj is essential to the just decision of the case or not. His evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. When he recorded the FIR, prepared the site inspection memo and site plan, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the information of the accused persons and made recoveries in pursuance thereof, the learned Sessions Judge should have given an opportunity to the prosecution to produce him. An order u/s 482, Cr.P.C. can well be passed to secure the ends of justice.

14 dates were fixed in the case for recording the statement of the investigating officer Karan Raj as the learned Public Prosecutor did not take necessary steps to ascertain his latest address as was expected from a Public Prosecutor. Such a lapse on his part cannot be allowed to help the accused persons in the murder case but deserves to be reported to the Government in the Law Department for necessary action against him.

Accordingly, the petition moved u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The prosecution is given one more opportunity to produce the investigating officer Karan Raj. Summons/bailable warrant may be taken ''Dasti''.

A copy of the order is sent to the Law Secretary cum Legal Remembrancer, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for necessary action against the Public Prosecutor, Jalore.