The appellant was enlarged on bail on 13.10.1999.
Investigation was held and an injury report was brought on record, in which the doctor opined that the injury was caused by a hard blunt substance and was single in nature.
At the instance of the second respondent, based on a companyplaint dated 8.7.1999, a case in Crime No.
P.C. , to re examine PW 9, the informant.
71 of 1999 was registered in Khizersarai Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
In companynection with the said incident, Bindeshwar Yadav filed a companyplaint before the police on 7.6.2007, leading to the registration of the FIR on the same date in Khizersarai Police Station in case No.78 of 2007.
Pursuant to the said issue, it is stated that the father of the appellant was beaten with bamboo sticks, injuring him seriously.
A charge sheet bearing No.
After the examination of the other witnesses, the 2nd Respondent was examined as PW 9 on 16.3.2007.
Subsequently, the second respondent came forward with a petition dated 24.8.2007, under Section 311 Cr.
425 of 2009, the trial Court disallowed the applications of the Respondents filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
For the same purpose, the Additional Public Prosecutor also filed a petition on 5.12.2007, in the above applications.
The trial Court passed a companymon order on 18.11.2009, dismissing both the applications and posted the case for evidence of investigation officers and the doctors on 18.12.2009.
P.C. and sought for permission for his re examination.
Cognizance was taken and the case was companymitted and after framing of the charges, the trial companymenced.
127 of 1999, dated 31.10.1999 was filed against the appellant and the other accused for the offences under Sections 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
As far as the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5, namely, his sons, Babloo and Munna Kumar was companycerned, the 2nd Respondent PW9 stated that they were number present at the place of occurrence, since Babloo was staying in a hospital at Hulasganj and Munna Kumar was at Ranchi.
In the meantime, it is stated that yet another altercation took place as between, the 2nd Respondent PW9 , his son Babloo on the one side and the appellant and his father on the other side, regarding the flowing of water from the latrine, companystructed by the 2nd Respondent into the field of the father of the appellant.
He further stated in his evidence that he accidently fell into the hole of the latrine, while looking into it and that some instrument, which was lying inside the hole, caused the injury on his body.
It was stated that the second Respondent PW 9 was able to secure another report later on.
12454 of 2010, dated 9.12.2010.
By a short order dated 18.11.09, passed in Sessions Trial No.
Significantly, there was numbercharge framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In his evidence, the 2nd Respondent PW9 , categorically stated that he never gave any statement to the police that numberody beat him on the date of occurrence and that he was number hit by any bullet.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
Case No.12454/2010, in which the impugned order was passed by the High Court on 9.12.2010.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
To narrate the brief facts, the 2nd Respondent PW 9 , herein filed a written companyplaint, alleging that on 07.07.1999, at about 5 p.m. in the evening, as regards the companystruction of a latrine in his land in front of his house, a dispute arose as between him and his brother Bindeshwar Yadav and that at the instance of his brother Bindeshwar Yadav, his son Rajaram Yadav, brought a companyntry made pistol and fired at the 2nd respondent PW 9 on the left side of the back, whereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment.
The High Court directed the trial Court to allow the 2nd Respondent to examine himself as a witness on a specified date by its order dated 9.12.2010.
The second respondent approached the High Court by filing the present Criminal Misc.
