Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Kumar Sharma @ Sukhdeo Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:6102)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2779 of 2025
------
Sukhdeo Kumar Sharma @ Sukhdeo Sharma, aged about 75 years,
S/o Late Mitto Sharma, R/o Qtr No.-B/1615, Sector-2, Side-4, P.O.-
Dhurwa & P.S.- Jaganathpur, Ranchi. Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bishwajit Goswami, S/o- Late P.B. Goswami, R/o Qtr No.-B/1767,
Sector-2, Side-4, P.O.- Dhurwa & P.S.- Jaganathpur, Ranchi.
Jharkhand
3. Raj Kishor Singh, S/o- Ramchandra Singh, R/o Qtr No.-B/1617,
Sector-2, Side-4, P.O.- Dhurwa & P.S.- Jaganathpur, Ranchi.
Jharkhand
4. Akhilesh Kumar @ Bittu, S/o- Kashinath Prasad, R/o Qtr No.-
B/1748, Sector-2, Side-4, P.O.- Dhurwa & P.S.- Jaganathpur, Ranchi.
Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Anil Kr. Keshri, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.2612 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
1 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken
up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Cr.M.P. No.2779 of 2025
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated
25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV,
Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 whereby and where under
the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has
dismissed the said Criminal Revision which was filed with the prayer
to quash the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.3552 of 2024 arising out of
G.R. Case No.2290 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned
S.D.J.M., Ranchi rejected the prayer of the prosecution to examine the
son of the informant namely Krishna Kumar Sharma on the ground that
he is not the eye-witness to the occurrence nor is he the witness cited in
the charge-sheet.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the prosecution filed a petition
before the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi mentioning therein that though
Krishna Kumar Sharma is not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet but
his examination is necessary in the interest of justice, hence, the prayer
was made for his examination as a witness. The learned S.D.J.M.,
2 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
Ranchi considered that the offences involved in the trial was punishable
under Section 341, 323, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
From the evidence of the five witnesses already examined by the
prosecution, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna
Kumar Sharma is not the eye-witness to the occurrence but he is a
hearsay witness; as the informant after coming to his home, narrated
about the occurrence to Krishna Kumar Sharma. Hence, it appeared to
the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not a
material witness. So, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi did not allow the
prayer and rejected the same.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, the
petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025. The learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sethuraman vs. Raja Manickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the order passed by the
learned trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and
such revision against said order is barred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
Similar, is the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in AIR 2009
SC 69 and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi
went on to hold that the Criminal Revision is not maintainable and
dismissed the same.
3 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 wherein it was
held that denying the right to recall a witness for cross-examination
merely because the trial is at its end causes prejudice to the accused. It is
next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case
of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) it was held
that the object underlying Section 311 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is to prevent failure of justice on account of a mistake of
either party to bring on record valuable evidence or leaving an
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses and in para-21 therein, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the
case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India reported in 1991
Supp (1) SCC 271 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reiterated the settled principle of law that the 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 the 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 and
examination of any person which would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the learned
S.D.J.M., Ranchi failed to appreciate the fact that the witness sought to
4 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
be examined namely Krishna Kumar Sharma is the son of the informant
and his statement in the instant matter is of much significance as this
witness is well aware of the factual aspect and Krishna Kumar Sharma
is an accused of the counter-case, therefore, the significance and
relevance of the witnesses cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted
that the testimony of the witness namely Krishna Kumar Sharma is
required for the proper adjudication of the instant case, hence, the
learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi ought to have allowed the prayer. Therefore, it
is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be
allowed.
6. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that
nowhere the prosecution has stated that what evidence the prosecution
intends to adduce through Krishna Kumar Sharma. The undisputed fact
remains that the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which
corresponds to Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., of the said Krishna Kumar
Sharma has not been recorded. The undisputed fact further remains
that though the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has in categorical terms
mentioned in the impugned order that the said Krishna Kumar Sharma
sought to be examined as a witness, is not an eye-witness to the
occurrence; yet the same has remained uncontroverted. The
observations of the learned trial court that as per the evidence that has
already come on record through other witnesses examined by the
5 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
prosecution; Krishna Kumar Sharma came to know about the
occurrence only after hearing about the same from the informant. So, at
best, he is a hearsay witness and in the facts of this case as discussed
above, his testimony is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in
rejecting the prayer of the prosecution to examine Krishna Kumar
Sharma as a witness of the prosecution as the same was unnecessary
and uncalled for and only a tactic to delay the disposal of the criminal
case and linger the same. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact
remains that the order passed by the court in rejecting the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order, hence, a criminal
revision is barred under Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in dismissing the Criminal Revision as not
maintainable. It is then submitted that as has rightly been mentioned by
the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi herself that the examination of Krishna
Kumar Sharma as a witness and the evidence sought to adduced is not
essential to the just decision of the case and therefore as for cogent
reason, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has rejected the same, so, the ratio
of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of this case and the same is the position of law so
far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India (supra) is concerned. Hence,
it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
7. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC
340 has held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
with caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons.
8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; it is not forthcoming as to
what evidence the prosecution intends to bring on record by examining
Krishna Kumar Sharma. Nowhere, the same has been disclosed in this
Cr.M.P. The undisputed fact remains that as has been observed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in the impugned order that Krishna Kumar
Sharma is not an eye-witness to the occurrence but he has heard about
the occurrence from the informant after the occurrence took place. So, at
best Krishna Kumar Sharma can be termed as a hearsay witness and in
the absence of any material for the learned trial court to arrive at the
conclusion that the evidence to be put-forth by Krishna Kumar Sharma
was essential for the just decision of the case, in the considered opinion
of this Court, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has not committed any error
in rejecting the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner; warranting interference of this Court under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. So far as the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in connection with
Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 is concerned, the undisputed fact
7 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:6102)
remains that the order rejecting an application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order so Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. bars a
Criminal Revision in challenging such interlocutory order. Therefore,
this Court also do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated
25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV,
Ranchi in connection with Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 for
dismissing the criminal revision on the ground that the same being not
maintainable, having been filed against an interlocutory order.
10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the
prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of its power
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 09th of March, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 12/03/2026
8 Cr. M.P. No.2779 of 2025