Ram Kewal Singh @ Ram Kewal Sharma Son of Late Shital Singh Vs. the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sheema ali khan, j.1. heard mr. pushkar narain shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. chittarahjan sinha, special public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state.2. the occurrence took place in the night at about 10:30 to 12 pm on 01.12.1997 in which 58 persons were killed. the prosecution has examined 91 witnesses and the defence has examined 9 witnesses. the argument in this case has commenced.3. the petitioner has made a prayer that the departmental enquiry report conducted by the area education officer, makhdumpur submitted to the district superintendent of education, jehanabad may be called for by the court. the petitioner wants to call for this document in order to show that during the departmental proceeding, it has been specifically stated by some of the witnesses that he was posed in a school at narhi and, therefore, his involvement in the alleged occurrence at makhdumpur is not possible. the said enquiry was made in the year 1999 and at the fag end of the trial, this application has been field.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact if the court allows the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, it would not take more than n week to prove this document.5. in my opinion, the enquiry report which was with respect to tine suspension of the petitioner would not be of much importance in view of the fact that the said enquiry report is dependent on the evidence taken during the enquiry which would mean that in order to prove the contents of the enquiry report, all those persons who had given evidence during the enquiry have to be examined in order to testify that the facts stated therein are correct. besides which, it is well settled that the standards of conducting a departmental proceeding and a criminal trial are different and both can continue simultaneously.6. mr. chitranjan singh, spl. p.p. appearing on behalf the state in this case submits that the question that the petitioner was posted at narhi during the time when the alleged occurrence took place has not specifically been put to any of the witnesses. the petitioner has not cross-examine or given any suggestion to the witnesses with respect to the plea of alibi which the petitioner wishes to invoke by production of this enquiry report. this aspect of the matter, however, would be subject to what the records of the case eventually discloses and subject to the arguments forwarded by the counsels appearing before the trial court.7. the spl. p.p. objects to the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that it has been made at a very belated stage and that the petitioner ought to have made a prayer to the trial court for calling of the enquiry report when he entered into his defence. infact, the petitioner has not been able the give sufficient reasons to justify the prayer made by him.8. considering all aspects of the matter, i do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 30.10.2009.9. this application is accordingly dismissed.