IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.152 of 2012 Khushabu Devi W/O Late Rajeev Kumar Singh Resident of Village-Bishvnathpur (Dumra), Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 03. 17.01.2012 Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the accused persons in Dumra P.S. Case No. 05 of 2009 as opposite parties to the present proceedings during the course of the day. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.08.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2009 arising from Dumra P.S. Case No. 05 of 2009 registered under Sections 364, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sitamarhi has been pleased to reject the prayer of the prosecution for admission of the material evidence by way of additional evidence. The prosecution case in brief is that the son of the informant, a class VI student was abducted while he was returning home from his school on 3.1.2009. The matter having been investigated into, the case has been put on trial. While the matter was pending consideration in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2009 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sitamarhi, an 2 application was filed on behalf of the prosecution for production of additional evidence in the form of a cassette containing the voice of kidnappers demanding ransom from the informant and the conversation between the informant, the kidnappers as also the voice of the victim boy. A report was called for by the court on 6.4.2011 on the petition dated 04.03.2011 requiring the investigating agency to furnish certain information as desired by the Trial Court. In the light of the order passed on 6.4.2011 by the court a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi vide Memo No. 1540(P) dated 11.07.2011 mentioning therein that the Officer In Charge, Dumra Police Station has seized the memory card of the mobile phone of the informant on 1.7.2011 and which contained the conversation between the kidnappers and the informant as also the voice of the victim boy and which cassette was available in the Dumra Police Station. Learned court below even while admitting the aforesaid fact has been pleased to reject the application of the prosecution by the impugned order dated 20.8.2011, inter alia, on grounds of having been filed at a belated stage as also in absence of reasons justifying non-production of the said evidence at the proper stage. It was also held that the prosecution was trying to fill up lacuna in the investigation. Although the prosecution has not come up before this Court against the order rejecting their application, the informant has filed the application in question being aggrieved by the order 3 passed by the trial court. According to the informant-petitioner the evidence sought to be brought on record is a material piece of evidence and very relevant for the adjudication of the case instituted on the basis of the information report given by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that additional evidence could be adduced at any stage of the proceedings if it is required in the interest of justice, has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court: (i) 2001 Cr.L.J.
1254 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another) (ii) 2002(3) B.L.J.
246 (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pai and another) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a division bench judgment of this Court since reported in 2007(2) PLJR 24 on the issue of fair trial and has referred to the observations of the division bench made in paragraph 27 of the said judgment. It is submitted that requirement of the fair trial is as important to the informant as it is to the accused, as he is the person aggrieved. It is contended that the additional evidence in question and considering the nature thereof, the learned court below ought not to have rejected the petition of the prosecution as neither the same was brought at a belated stage nor it was meant to fill up lacuna rather the evidence having been come within the knowledge of the prosecution and being an important factor for driving home the charges, it was expedient in the interest of justice that the same should have been allowed to be led as additional evidence. 4 Learned counsel while referring to the scope and intent of the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., submits that the law is well settled on the issue and any piece of evidence found material for proper administration of justice, should not be rejected on technicalities. Issue notice to the newly added opposite parties nos. 2 to 10 for which requisites under ordinary process as well as registered cover be filed within one week, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. Additional copies of notice would also be filed by learned counsel for the petitioner for service thereof on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2009 and which shall be effectively served upon learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused through the learned trial court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sitamarhi who may also submit a report as regarding service thereof, to this Court. Put up after service of notice. In the meantime, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2009 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sitamarhi shall remain stayed. (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.Sb/-