Dilip Kumar Thakur @ Laddu Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72788 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Thakur @ Laddu Thakur Son of Late Asesawar Thakur @ Late Asheshwar Thakur Resident of Village - Narayanpur, P.S.- Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-03-2020 Petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in S.Tr. No. 433/2017, arising out of Complaint Case No. C71/2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, III, Muzaffarpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the opinion of the learned court below saying that petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed at this stage only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence in support of the case of complainant/prosecution is not a correct opinion and rejection of his application on the basis of such opinion needs to be set-aside.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72788 of 2019(2) dt.03-03-2020 2/3 Learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution wanted to produce Nagendra Ojha and Chitranjan Thakur as witness on the strength of an order of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned court found that the complainant never raised this issue before initiation of trial, they were not named as witness in the complaint petition and after all the available witnesses in the complaint petition have been examined, the complainant has come with this petition. The two out of four witnesses have already been examined whereas two have died. The present application came to be filed.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and upon going through the impugned order this court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below is correct in taking the view that Nagendra Ojha and Chitranjan Ojha were not witness in the complaint petition, they were not produced at the stage of inquiry and/or at the stage of evidence before charge. The complainant never raised any issue with regard to them before initiation of trial and only after he had exhausted the witnesses named in the complaint petition he came out with the name of these two persons with sole intention to fill up the lacuna of evidence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72788 of 2019(2) dt.03-03-2020 3/3 in support of their case.

This court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T