Ram Bachan Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9124 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Bachan Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 999 of 2018
             Ram Bachan Tiwary              ......              ...... Appellant(s)
                                Versus
             The State of Jharkhand         ......              ...... Respondent(s)

     CORAM              :
                        SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.

------

08/10.09.2024: I.A. No. 2174 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant to allow the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in S.T. Case No. 209 of 2015 to be treated as additional evidences in the present appeal as these four witnesses had also deposed as witnesses in S.T. No. 63 of 2012 wherein the statement given by these four witnesses at that relevant point of time is completely different to the evidences given during trial in S.T. No. 209 of 2015 arising out of same case i.e. Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2007 (G.R. No. 2093 of 2007) under Sections 143, 341, 324, 307 of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently added under Section 304-B of IPC, disposed of by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih.

2. From the prayer, we find that he has prayed to bring on record the evidences which have been adduced in another trial, as additional evidence. The aforesaid prayer is absolutely misconceived as the instant appeal is arising out of S.T. No. 63 of 2012 wherein independent evidence has been led by the prosecution and the defence has duly cross-examined all of them. There is no relevance of the evidence of those witnesses who deposed in S.T. No. 209 of 2015 in this trial.

3. This interlocutory application being misconceived is dismissed.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 999 of 2018 Judgment reserved.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Anu-Tiwary- Cp-3