Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sukumar Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand

Sukumar Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 20, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972708

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukumar Ghosh

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....could be passed .thereupon, suddenly the court closed the evidence of the prosecution. being aggrieved with that order, an application was filed under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure praying therein to summon the doctor and the investigating office as their evidences would be necessary for just decision of the case but that application was dismissed, vide order dated 31.1.2008 by holding that much time has already been consumed still the prosecution has failed to examine all the witnesses. that order is under challenge. mr.choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the investigating officer and the doctor in the case are not examined, there would be miscarriage of justice as their evidences would be necessary for just decision of the case. keeping in view the facts and circumstances, i do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that evidences of doctor and investigating officer are quite necessary for just decision of the case. accordingly, the order dated 31.1.2008 is hereby set aside and this application is allowed. before parting with this order, it be stated that the trial court would take every endeavour to secure the attendance of the doctor and the i.o as early as possible. meanwhile, if it possible for the informant to get hold of the new address of the doctor and the i.o, it be furnished so that they be summoned. (r.r.prasad, j.) nd/

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.346 of 2008 Sukumar Ghosh ...................................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand ..................... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Choudhary For the State : A.P.P 8.20.6.13. A case was lodged by the informant-petitioner for commission of offence under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken against the accused persons, who were put on trial. During trial, private witnesses were examined by the prosecution but when A.P.P did not took any serious effort to secure attendance of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, an application was filed before the court for removing the said A.P.P from the case so that new A.P.P be assigned with the case. However, no order could be passed .Thereupon, suddenly the court closed the evidence of the prosecution. Being aggrieved with that order, an application was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to summon the Doctor and the Investigating Office as their evidences would be necessary for just decision of the case but that application was dismissed, vide order dated 31.1.2008 by holding that much time has already been consumed still the prosecution has failed to examine all the witnesses. That order is under challenge. Mr.Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the Investigating Officer and the Doctor in the case are not examined, there would be miscarriage of justice as their evidences would be necessary for just decision of the case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that evidences of Doctor and Investigating Officer are quite necessary for just decision of the case. Accordingly, the order dated 31.1.2008 is hereby set aside and this application is allowed. Before parting with this order, it be stated that the trial court would take every endeavour to secure the attendance of the Doctor and the I.O as early as possible. Meanwhile, if it possible for the informant to get hold of the new address of the Doctor and the I.O, it be furnished so that they be summoned. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial