Parbat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Parbat Singh vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 29, 1993

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760333

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760333
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra Jain, J.
Decided On: Jan 29, 1993
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 17 of 1993
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 302 and Criminal Procedure Code--Secy. 311 & 482--Investigation officer not produced on 14 dates--FIR registered site plan prepared & Statements recorded by him--Held, protection should be seven one more opportunity to secure his presence and order Under Section 482 can be passed in inte...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parbat Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: State v. Jalam Singh and Ors. Under Section
Reported In: 1993WLN(UC)38

Excerpt

.....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.;petition allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - can well be passed to secure the ends of justice......dismissed the application of the public prosecutor moved under section 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. under section 302, 307, 325 and 323, i.p.c. the facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.2. 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 under section 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, 1992.3. 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 under section 161, cr.p.c. and recoveries were effected on the basis of the information given by the accused persons and recorded by him under section 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.4. in reply, it has been contended by the.....

Full Judgment

Milap Chandra Jain, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 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 under Section 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. Under Section 302, 307, 325 and 323, I.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.

2. 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 under Section 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.

3. 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 under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and recoveries were effected on the basis of the information given by the accused persons and recorded by him under Section 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.

4. 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 under Section 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.

5. 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 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can well be passed to secure the ends of justice.

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, the petition moved under Section 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'.

8. 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.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1993 Same Parties Parbat Singh vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Milap Chandra Jain, J.

Criminal