Laxman Singh @ Lakshuman Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46600 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2012 Thana- AGIAON District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Laxman Singh @ Lakshuman Singh Son of Kanglu Singh Resident of Village- Baburahi Tola, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District- Bhojpur at Arrah. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State Of Bihar and Anr 2.
Rampravesh Singh S/o Late Mahadeo Singh Resident of Village- Nonar Ariadih Tola, P.S.- Piro Hasanbazar, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ramakant Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr J.N. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner, whereas the learned APP, Shri J.N. Thakur appeared for the State.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner who is an accused of Section 304 B read with Section 34 was facing trial in Session Trial No. 424/2012 arising out of Agiaon Bazar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2012. Charges were framed against him and the trial was going on.
3. During pendency of the trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecutions and those witnesses were crossexamined by the defense (petitioner's side). After examination and cross-examination of eight prosecution witnesses, the application under Section 311 of the CrPC was filed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46600 of 2016(3) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 petitioner with a prayer to recall the witnesses on the ground that some vital points such as cruelty and demand of dowry could not be asked during cross-examination.
4. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.09.2016 rejected that application stating therein that such type of application cannot be allowed at the belated stage.
5. The application for recall of the witnesses was filed at the argument stage without disclosing the reasons as to why those vital points were not asked to the witnesses at the juncture of their examination and cross-examination which shows itself that it is nothing but a dilatory tactics.
6. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T