Patna High Court
Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing the recall and re‑examination of the prosecution witnesses under Section 311 CrPC.
Summary
Guddu Kumar filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) dated 5 July 2024 that allowed the recall and re‑examination of prosecution witnesses PW‑2 to PW‑9. The petitioner alleged that the witnesses had been declared hostile and that their statements were obtained under threat and coercion, rendering the order illegal. The State and the second opposite party contended that the witnesses had indeed faced intimidation and that the recall was justified. The High Court examined the submissions and found that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 311 CrPC to permit the re‑examination of the witnesses, noting the earlier hostility and pressure on them. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to expedite the re‑examination of the prosecution witnesses within specified time‑frames.
Issues considered
- Whether the order allowing recall of prosecution witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is legally valid in view of alleged hostility and coercion.
- Whether the petition seeking quash of that order should be entertained.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 311 CrPC
- hostile witnesses
- witness tampering
- POCSO
- quash order
- evidence re‑examination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63757 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2022 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger
======================================================
Guddu Kumar Son of Subodh Yadav Village- Chharra Patti, P.S.- Hemjapur,
Dist.- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priti Kumari Wife of Raushan Yadav Village- Chharra Patti, P.S.- Hemjapur,
Dist.- Munger
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO) Act,
Munger in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022,
corresponding to POCSO Case No. 03 of 2023, whereby and
whereunder the informant’s application dated 21.02.2024 filed
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling all the P.Ws. i.e. P.W. 2
to P.W. 9 has been allowed for re-examination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P.W.
2 to P.W. 7 were declared hostile and they have not supported
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63757 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
the prosecution version. So far P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are concerned,
they have also not supported their own version as well as
statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence of P.W. 1
(Doctor) is concerned, he has assessed the age of the victim
between 16 to 17 years. It is next submitted that the informant
has filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that
they have given their deposition under threat and coercion,
however, prosecution evidence started on 28.06.2023 and
continued till 28.06.2024. For the aforesaid period the
informant/O.P. No. 2 remained silent on the point of
threatenings allegedly given by the petitioner and therefore the
impugned order is bad in law and fit to be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that
when the case was at the stage of deposition of prosecution
evidence the mother of the accused lodged Dharhara P.S. Case
No. 39 of 2023 against the grand-father, father and uncle of the
victim and started pressurizing them to turn hostile otherwise
the accused party would file another false case against them.
After denial, they have managed and succeeded to got arrested
the grand-father of the victim. It is further submitted that after
threat to face dire consequences the informant had given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63757 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
petition to the S.P. and D.I.G. Munger regarding the tampering
and to turn hostile. The earlier evidence in court deposed by the
P.Ws. 2 to 9 are under threat and coercion. Lastly, it has been
submitted that an application dated 21.02.2024 filed for
recalling P.Ws. 2 to 9 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rightly
allowed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, it appears that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the petition under Section
311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution was allowed.
6. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners
that the informant though has stated that she had given an
application to the DIG, Munger and S.P., Munger for the threats
received, however, nothing was brought on record. This Court
has observed that from the perusal of the impugned order, it
would be evident that earlier all the prosecution witnesses
barring the official witnesses were declared hostile and it has
been stated that on account of a case lodged on behalf of the
petitioner they were under threat and, in fact, their grand-father
has also been sent to jail and therefore the persons did not
support the prosecution case earlier. However, they gathered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63757 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
courage and filed the present application under Section 311
Cr.P.C., which was allowed.
7. Perused the order impugned and after going
through the same, it seems that the learned trial court rightly
allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling
the witnesses and had permitted the prosecution witnesses to be
examined as none of the private witnesses had earlier supported
the prosecution and were declared hostile which also goes on to
show that it was on account of certain pressure and that they all
had been declared hostile earlier.
8. In view of the above, the present application is
dismissed.
9. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial and, re-examine the prosecution witnesses within a period
of four months from the date of passing of this order and
conclude the evidence of prosecution witnesses within a period
of six months from today.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…