1 W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 ------ Shivam Singh, age 25 years, S/o Ved Prakash Singh, C/o Munna Ram, Edalhatu, P.O.+ P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi Jharkhand- 834009 … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing the deposition dated 30.09.2024 recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. Case No.538 of 2019 arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.98 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 30.09.2024, one of the accused persons of the case was produced from custody. The attendance of the Investigating Officer was filed who has been examined as PW-9. During his examination-in- chief, he had proved several documents which have been marked exhibits. Because of paucity of time, the case was adjourned and the examination-in- chief has not yet been concluded. 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Barun Pandit vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 2803 and submits that in para-4(b) therein, the Division Bench of this Court had opined that the Investigating Officer should be examined as far as possible as the last witness. So, the omission, improvement and contradiction would be drawn attention of the Investigating Officer of the case. It is next submitted that hence, the trial court ought to have waited for examination of all the charge-sheeted witnesses before recording the evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned deposition dated 30.09.2024 is not in accordance with the settled principle of law and the same be set aside and the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General-III appearing for the State submits that there are altogether thirteen persons cited as witnesses in para-13 of the charge-sheet. Out of whom, undisputedly eight have been examined including one doctor. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness cited in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that it is also a settled principle of law that the quantity of the evidence does not matter and what matters is the quality of evidence. It is also submitted that it is common knowledge that once a police officer, who is Investigating Officer of the case, superannuates from his service, it is very difficult to procure his attendance. Undisputedly, the case is more than five years old. The age of the Investigating Officer is 60 years as mentioned in his deposition, the certified copy of which has been annexed with this Writ Petition at Annexure-4, page Nos.37 to 39. It is next submitted that 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 under such circumstances no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in recording the deposition of the PW-9. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that no doubt, it is desirable that the Investigating Officer of the case should be examined as far as possible as the last witness so that the omission, improvement and contradiction could be drawn attention of the Investigating Officer by the defence. In any criminal case, after framing of charge, the trial court must fix the case, consecutively for a series of dates for recording of the evidence of the witnesses. The number of days to which the case will be listed consecutively depends upon the number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet and the ability of the court to examine a particular number of witnesses in a day, keeping in view the other assignments of that court. It is desirable that the trial court must examine the victim, eye-witnesses to the occurrence, other witnesses, including the witnesses who will depose about the circumstances, seizure witnesses and expert witnesses, including the doctors, preferably in that order and the last witness to be summoned should be the Investigating Officer of the case. It often happens that some of the witnesses will not turn up for examination for some reason, or other and the Investigating Officer will turn up before the court for his examination on the designated day. In such cases, it is desirable that, keeping in view the difficulty in procuring the attendance of the Investigating Officer of the case during the criminal trial; if an Investigating Officer of a case turns up as a witness in a criminal case, unless 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 there is any compelling reason, such witness should not be sent back unexamined, as on examination by the court he can adduce evidence regarding the documents which are sought to be produced by the prosecution and he can also adduce evidence regarding the place of occurrence of the concerned case, which are no doubt vital evidence in any criminal trial; but if after examination of the Investigating Officer, further evidence is adduced by the prosecution and if any witness examined after the elimination of the Investigating Officer of the case, departs from his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or makes any omission or improvement or contradicts his previous statement or for any other purpose if further cross-examination of the Investigating Officer who has already been examined as a witness is required, certainly in appropriate cases upon such prayer being made by the defence, the trial court may recall the witness for the further cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. 7. 7. In view of the discussions made above, as eight witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution before examination of the Investigating Officer in this case, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view that the case is already more than five years old and the Investigating Officer of the case is aged 60 years, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi has not committed any illegality by examining the Investigating Officer of the case as PW-9. 8. It is made clear that if the prosecution examines any further witness in S.T. Case No.538 of 2019 and such witness makes any omission, improvement or contradiction from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.1055 of 2024 Code of Criminal Procedure or the court feels that there is a necessity for further cross-examination of the PW-9, then upon such prayer made by the petitioner, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi may recall the PW-9 for his further cross-examination. 9. This Writ Petition (Cr.) is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of January, 2025 AFR/ Saroj