Leave granted.
Despite service of notice, except for the State of Jharkhand, none of the
other respondents, who are accused in the trial, are present before us.
The appellant before us is the complainant on whose complaint, the
criminal proceedings were commenced. It is his grievance that despite his repeated
endeavours, he was not examined by the prosecution, as a witness and despite being
the victim of the assault, his case was not being
properly represented before the trial court. He, in fact, made an application to the trial court to allow his statement to be brought on the records.
Subsequently, the State made an application under Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to examine three witnesses, including the
complainant/appellant before us and two other witnesses – one the Investigating
Officer of the case, and the other the Medical Officer, who examined the victim. The
application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was duly allowed by the trial court, but
upon the accused moving the High Court, the High Court set aside the said order,
against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. In fact, the
appeal ought to have been filed by the State, which seems to have been slack in
prosecuting the case. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties,
we are convinced that in order to do justice between the parties, the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the State was rightly allowed, notwithstanding the
delay in the trial.
Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring
that of the trial court, we direct that the examination of the defendants'
witnesses be
completed within two months from the date of communication of this order and the
trial is to be completed within three months thereafter.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
New Delhi, December 15, 2008.