BIPIN YADAV v. THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Shishir/- U (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR Mr. Sunil Kumar Mr. Uday Chand Prasad ORAL ORDER 2 22-08-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State; Shri Shyam Kumar Singh.
This is an application for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakhisarai in S. Tr. No. 116 of 2016 arising out of Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2013 by which the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W. 6 (Dr. Raman Kumar) has been rejected.
In the Sessions Trial, the Dr. Raman Kumar has been cross-examined by the advocate for the petitioner. After the conclusion of the evidence, the application has been filed mentioning some question which are yet to be put to the doctor.
From the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60608 of 2023(2) dt.22-08-2024 Judge has considered the application of the petitioner and has found that Dr. Raman Kumar has been examined, cross- examined and discharged by the court as P.W. (6) on 09.03.2022 and the doctor has opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling based on the post-mortem report. There is no mention of poisoning in the post-mortem report, and it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased has been killed by poisoning or by drowning. Some ante-mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the question with regard to poisoning and drowning are irrelevant.
It appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the trial.
Operative part
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Shishir/- U (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.