Jharkhand High Court
Jay Prakash Mahto @ Jai Prakash Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1078 of 2025
------
1. Jay Prakash Mahto @ Jai Prakash Mahto, aged about 45 years, son
of Paran Ram Mahto
2. Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Mahto, aged about 48 years, son of late
Bhootnath Mahto
3. Kolanath Mahto, aged about 51 years, son of Late Kalicharan
Mahto
4. Niranjan Mahto, aged about 48 years, son of Late Kalicharan
Mahto
5. Sandeep Mahto @ Sandeep Kumar Mahto @ Rugu Mahto, aged
about 24 years, son of Niranjan Mahto
6. Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Mansu Mahto, aged
about 38 years, son of Late Bhutnath Mahto
Petitioner No.1-6 are resident of village Sokla, P.O. + P.S.
Barlanga, District-Ramgarh
7. Shishupal Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of Chaita Mahto,
resident of Village Dimra, P.O. + P.S. Barlanga, District Ramgarh
8. Pratima Devi @ Pramika Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Jai
Prakash Mahto, resident of village Sokla, P.O. + P.S. Barlanga,
District-Ramgarh
9. Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar Mahto, aged about 49 years, son
of Hudka Mahto, resident of village Dimra, P.O. + P.S. Barlanga,
District-Ramgarh
10.Basanti Devi @ Basanti Devu, aged about 45 years, wife of
Kolanath Mahto
11.Nunibala Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Late Bhuthnath
Mahto
Petitioner no.10 and 11 are residents of village-Sokla, P.O. +P.S.
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer
to quash and set aside the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. Case No.86 of 2020 arising
out of Barlanga P.S. Case No.12 of 2020 involving the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that PW-1 Pramod Kumar Mahto is an eye
witness of the occurrence but he is also a witness of inquest of the dead body of
the deceased and he is a signatory to the inquest report. In his examination as
PW-1 in this case, Pramod Kumar Mahto has not stated anything to suggest
that he was the witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased Deva
Nand Mahto or he had signed the inquest report. The inquest report of the
dead body of the deceased Deva Nand Mahto was marked as Exhibit-P-5/PW-
11 by PW-11, the IO of the case. The IO of the case as PW-11 in para-10 has
categorically stated that the signature of the Pramod Kumar Mahto, whose
parents name and address, as mentioned in the inquest report, tallies with that
of the PW-1 as mentioned in his deposition. After the examination of the PW-
11, the Petitioners who are the accused persons of S.T. Case No.86 of 2020 of the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh filed a petition under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the PW-1 to cross-examine him only in
respect of exhibit-P-5; that is the inquest report of the dead body of the
deceased Deva Nand Mahto. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
Ramgarh observed that the defence has fully cross-examined the PW-1 at
length and the accused persons of the case who are the petitioners herein have
not disclosed on which point they want to recall the PW-1 and considering that
the evidence of the prosecution was already closed, rejected the petition filed
under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by observing that the petition has been filed by
the petitioners to linger the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits by drawing attention of this
Court to Annexure-4 of this brief, which is the copy of the certified copy of the
inquest report which was marked P-5 (PW-11) that though the entire document
has been marked exhibit but specifically the portion of the signature of Pramod
Kumar Mahto has not been marked as exhibit separately. It is next submitted
that the PW-1 is silent in his deposition regarding his being a witness to the
inquest of the dead body of the deceased Deva Nand Mahto, hence, it is
submitted that the petitioners will be highly prejudiced unless they are
permitted to cross-examine the PW-1 only in respect of the inquest report
which has been marked as P-5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Abid Ansari and Another vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Jhar 926, it is next submitted that in that case, the learned Court relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.
Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56; wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case
of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India reported in [1991 Supp (1) SCC
271] in paragraph-27 of which, it was observed that criminal court has ample
power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such
person, even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play
and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the
requirements of justice command case. It is also submitted that in para-8 of the
said judgment, this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that grant
of fairest opportunity to the accused who prove his innocence is the object of
every fair trial. It is next submitted that since the Ext- P-5 was exhibited, after
examination of PW-1, so there was no occasion for the petitioners to cross-
examine the PW-1 in respect of exhibit-P-5, hence, it is submitted that the
prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits
that since the PW-1 has not stated anything about the exhibit-P-5, there is no
necessity for his further cross-examination. It is submitted that this Cr.M.P.,
being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has two parts, the first part is discretionary
whereas the second part is mandatory. As per the first part, a Court may
summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already
examined but the second part is mandatory which is that, if examination as a
witness or recall or re-examination of any person if his evidence appears to be
essential to the just decision of the case, it compels the court to take any steps
provided in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that
the PW-1 is a witness to the inquest report which has been marked as exhibit-5
after examination, cross-examination and discharge of the PW-1 as a witness.
The PW-1 in his deposition has not stated anything to suggest that he was also
a witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased Deva Nand Mahto.
So, obviously, there was no occasion for the petitioner-accused person of the
case to cross-examine the PW-1, on the point of inquest report. Accordingly,
there is no cross-examination of the PW-1 on the point of inquest report
marked P-5.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh has committed a grave illegality
by observing that the defence has fully cross-examined the PW-1 and had
ignored that the petitioners who are the accused person of the case has
categorically stated that they want to cross-examine PW-1, in respect of the
inquest report only; which has been marked as exhibit-P-5, hence, this Court is
of the considered view that the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. Case No.86 of
2020 arising out of Barlanga P.S. Case No.12 of 2020 is not sustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. Case No.86 of 2020 arising
out of Barlanga P.S. Case No.12 of 2020, is quashed and set aside.
10. The prayer of the petitioners to recall the PW-1 for the limited purpose of
putting him questions only in respect of the inquest report of the dead body of
( 2025:JHHC:13783 )
the deceased Deva Nand Mahto which has been marked as exhibit-P-5 is
allowed.
11. The trial court is directed to re-open the case of the prosecution and
summon the PW-1 for his further cross-examination in respect of the PW-5 i.e.
the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased Deva Nand Mahto only
which has been marked as Exhibit-P-5.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 06th of May, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
