Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter vs Union Of India Through (National … on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
--------
Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter, aged about 62 years, son of Late
Khetra Mohan Patar, resident of Tamar, Barlanga, P.S. Tamar, P.O.
Tamar, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through (National Investigating Agency)
… … Opp. Party
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
——–
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 04/ Dated: 03rd April, 2025
Prayer:
The instant petition is directed against the Order dated
15.06.2024 passed by AJC XVI-cum-Learned Special Judge, NIA,
Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1286/2023 arising out of Special
NIA Case No. 01 of 2017, RC Case No. 11/2017/NIA/DLI by which
the application filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has been
rejected.
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that the full Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 16.12.2022 passed in B.A. No. 5937 of 2022
while taking in consideration the various provisions of the UAPA
Act, 1967 and NIA Act, 2008 as also considering the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616 has observed that since the offence
emanates from Schedule-I of the NIA Act, 2008, will be scheduled
offences and triable exclusively by the Special Courts and as such,
the decision since is to be passed either by way of a judgment,
sentence or order, admittedly order not being in the nature of
interlocutory, the same will be amenable under the appellate
jurisdiction of the High Court to be heard by the Division Bench of
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
the High Court as would appear from Section 21(1)(2) of the NIA
Act, 2008.
3. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala
and Others Vs Roopesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3099 has again
observed that any order passed by the learned Special Court, not
being an interlocutory order, is subjected to appeal before the High
Court and to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.
4. It needs to refer herein that earlier the instant petition has been
listed before the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court wherein vide
order dated 20.09.2024 it has been observed that since the matter is
related to the National Investigating Agency Act, it be placed before
the appropriate Division Bench. Accordingly, vide minutes dated
22.10.2024, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has assigned the instant
petition before the regular Division Bench.
Factual Matrix:
5. in the aforesaid backdrop, we are now adverting to the facts of
the instant case. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in
the petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Bundu P.S. Case
No. 65 of 2008 was instituted on 09.07.2008 under Sections 302,
379, 120B and 34 of the IPC, 1860 and under Section 27 of Arms
Act and under Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932
against unknown persons for assassination of the then sitting MLA
Sri Ramesh Singh Munda. On the basis of investigation 3 charge
sheets were submitted by the State Police and later on the matter was
investigated by Crime Investigation Department (CID).
The investigation was thereafter taken up by National
Investigating Agency (NIA) and the case was re-registered as R.C.-
11/2017/NIA/DLI on 30.06.2017. Thereafter NIA submitted its 3 rd
Supplementary Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 08/18 dated
31.03.2018 against the petitioner and others under Section 120B read
with Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 202 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DBof Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and under Section 25(1)(b)
of Arms Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused being
Accused No. 17.
6. The petitioner when came out from the judicial custody by
virtue of the Order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
Order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1895 of 2023
has made an application under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C allowing
the petitioner to cross-examine the approvers who have been made as
prosecution witness i.e P.W.-1 and P.W.2. The said application was
rejected by the impugned order dated 15.06.2024 against which the
present Cr.M.P. has been preferred.
7. The ground has been taken that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law reason being that the vital opportunity
to cross-examine the approvers turned prosecution witness P.W.-1
and P.W.-2 have been denied which is contrary to the mandate as
provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
8. Learned counsel has submitted that the statutory command as
provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C has not been followed
which goes to the root of the fairness and transparency in the trial
and even though such application was made to follow the statutory
command but the same has not been considered in the right
perspective and said application has been rejected against which the
present petition has been preferred. It has been contended that merely
on the ground of the evidence of the approvers, there cannot be any
conviction.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party:
9. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned
counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner and thereby has submitted that there is no error in the
impugned order.
10. He has referred to the content of the order passed by the
3 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DBLearned Special Judge, NIA which is available at Page 178
wherefrom it is evident that the ample opportunity was given to the
present petitioner which has fully been availed by him while cross-
examining the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the approvers. The same has also
been taken note in the impugned order and as such it is incorrect on
the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the statutory
command as provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C has not been
followed.
11. It has been contended that the only reason for filing the instant
petition is to delay the trial and in one way or other way. The learned
trial Court has taken into consideration the statutory provision and by
incorporating the same by taking it from the day-to-day order sheets,
finding has been given that both the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the approvers
have been cross-examined at length by the petitioner. The cross-
examination of P.W.1 which was done on day-to-day basis till
08.01.2019. Further the cross-examination of P.W.-2 by the petitioner
was finally concluded on 24.05.2019.
12. It has further been contended that after lapse of about more
than four years, such petition has been filed which itself indicates
that the instant petition is nothing but only a technique to prolong
the trial, therefore, the impugned order which is under challenge in
this petition cannot be said to suffer from an error and therefore
present petition may be dismissed.
Analysis:
13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and gone through the finding recorded by Learned Trial Court
in the Impugned Judgment as also the argument advanced on behalf
of the parties.
14. in the instant petition the fact about the question of fairness
and transparency has been raised by the petitioner by alleging that
the sufficient opportunity has not been provided to him to cross-
examine the approvers, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 .
4 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
15. This Court is not in dispute that the principle of criminal
jurisprudence, is based upon the principle of fairness and
transparency, meaning thereby that the accused person so long is not
being convicted will be said to be innocent on the principle of
presumption of innocence and to defend innocence of such accused
person, a full opportunity to defend himself is to be provided by the
court concerned. A similar right has also been provided to the
prosecution to get the charge proved and for the aforesaid purpose, a
mechanism has been provided in the Cr. P.C. as under Section 306 to
declare an accomplice to be an approver. For ready reference,
provision of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is being referred
hereinbelow:-
“306. Tender of pardon to accomplice.-(1)- With
a view to obtaining the evidence of any person
supposed to have been directly or indirectly
concerned in or privy to an offence to which this
section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a
Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the
investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the
offence, and the Magistrate of the first class
inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage
of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to
such person on condition of his making a full and
true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances
within his knowledge relative to the offence and to
every other person concerned, whether as
principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
(2) This section applies to –
(a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of
Session or by the Court of a Special Judge
appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1952 (46 of 1952);
5 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
(b) any offence punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to seven years or with a more
severe sentence.
(3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under
sub-section (1) shall record –
(a) his reasons for so doing;
(b) whether the tender was or was not accepted
by the person to whom it was made,
and shall, on application made by the accused,
furnish him with a copy of such record free of
cost.
(4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon
made under sub-section (1) –
(a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence
and in the subsequent trial, if any;
(b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained
in custody until the termination of the trial.
(5) Where a person has accepted a tender of
pardon made under sub-section (1) and has been
examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate
taking cognizance of the offence shall, without
making any further inquiry in the case, –
(a) commit it for trial –
(i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable
exclusively by that Court or if the Magistrate
taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial
Magistrate;
(ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under
the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of
1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by that
Court;
6 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
(b) in any other case, make over the case to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case
himself.”
16. The status of the approver is also as a witness to support the
prosecution version subject to the true disclosure which is to be
given by such witness. The care has also been taken by inserting the
provision under Section 306 (4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. by providing a vital
right to the defence to cross-examine such witness.
17. The present petitioner who is an accused being Accused No.
17 and facing the trial was in custody upto 13.12.2023. The cross-
examination of the said witness i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 by the
petitioner, has already been concluded on 08.01.2019 and
24.05.2019.
18. The petitioner has preferred an application filed under Section
306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. raising the grievance that he has not been
allowed to cross-examine the approver i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 thereby
a statutory right conferred to the accused as provided under Section
306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has been denied.
19. The NIA has contested the said application and has taken the
plea by negating the ground taken of not providing an opportunity to
cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.2, the two approvers rather by
pointing out the fact that one Ram Mohan Singh Munda who has
been made approver cited as P.W.-1 had been cross-examined on
behalf of the petitioner, Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter on day to
day basis till 08.01.2019, thereafter another pardon accused Santosh
Burma @ Tipru Burma had been examined as P.W.-2 on 21.02.2019
whose examination-in-chief was concluded on 28.02.2019 and
thereafter his cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner started
which was finally concluded on 24.05.2019.
20. The learned Special Judge has considered the aforesaid fact
from the order sheets and on consideration of the aforesaid, has
rejected the said petition on the ground that ample opportunity to
7 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
cross-examination of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, both the approver have
been given to the petitioner. The aforesaid order is hereby challenged
by way of filing of the instant petition.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no
ample opportunity had been given to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2, the approvers.
22. We are conscious that the power as conferred to this Court is
inherent in nature but the same is to be exercised by interfering in the
decision taken by the concerned Court who is in the seisin of the
matter herein learned Special Judge who is exercising the power in
view of its jurisdiction under Section 11 of NIA Act, 2008 is to
consider the propriety of the order and if it is found that there is error
apparent on the face of it or the finding is erroneous and contrary to
the record, then certainly such order needs to be interfered with by
the High Court in exercise of its inherent power.
23. This Court based upon the aforesaid premise has proceeded to
examine the propriety of the order passed by the Learned Special
Judge which is impugned in the instant petition.
24. The sole ground taken of non-observance of the statutory right
conferred under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C to the petitioner/
accused, by depriving him to cross-examine the said approvers who
have been cross-examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no denial
that any witness even the approver who have been considered to be
witness by the prosecution are required to be cross-examined for the
purpose of providing the opportunity to defend so as to follow the
principal of fairness and transparency in the trial by giving ample
opportunity to the accused to prove its innocence.
25. The provision of Section 306(4)(a) is also with the same
intent. The question of non-observance of the provision of Section
306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. is the bone of contention in assailing the
impugned order.
26. We in order to consider the aforesaid contention have gone
8 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
through the impugned order and found that the learned Special Judge
has considered the aforesaid issue and by taking note from the
different order sheet of the different dates as incorporated in the
impugned order that the prosecution witness P.W.-1 namely Ram
Mohan Singh Munda and P.W.-2 namely Santosh Burma @ Tipru
Burma who have been made approvers by the prosecution in view of
the provision of Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C., after their
examination-in-chief, had been put to cross-examination by the
accused persons including the present petitioner also who is also one
of the accused.
27. It is evident from the impugned order that P.W.-1 had been
allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner on day-to-day basis
till 08.01.2019 thereafter another pardon accused Santosh Burma @
Tipru Burma had also been allowed to cross-examine by the
petitioner which was finally concluded on 24.05.2019. For ready
reference the relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned order dated
15.06.2024 is being quoted as under:
I have gone through the case record it appears that Ram Mohan
Singh Munda and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma are accused
in this case. During course of investigation, they were taken on
police remand vide order dated 11.09.2017 and 08/09/2017
respectively, during police remand they confessed their guilt and
ready to make disclosure about the entire conspiracy, their role
and role of other accused persons in murder of ex MLA Ramesh
Singh Munda two of the police personnel and one school boy.
Accordingly on the prayer of NIA their confessional statements
u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First class,
on 23/09/2017. On the basis of confessional statement of PW1
Ram Mohan Singh Munda and PW2 Santosh Munda @ Tipru
Burma on the prayer of IO, in order to collect important piece of
evidence to endure the conviction of main culprits / co-accused
persons involved in large scale conspiracy in an organised
manner in heinous crime of murder in lawful manner based on
solid evidence. On 23/11/2017 accomplish accused PW1 Ram9 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DBMohan Singh Munda and PW2 Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma
were produced before court through video conferencing and
both clearly submitted to court that they are ready to accept
tender of pardon on condition that they will unreveal entire truth
in this offence so that guilt of other accused persons concerned
in commission of crime could be brought home. Accordingly, ld
special Judge, NIA find prayer of NIA true and genuine in the
light of submission of accomplish in presence of their respective
counsels and they were shown their readiness and willingness to
accept tender of pardon with condition that they will make a full
and true disclosure of whole circumstances within his knowledge
relating to the offence. Accordingly, prayer was allowed and
NIA was permitted to examine accused accomplish Ram
Mohan Singh Munda and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma as
approver. Hence, their respective statements u/s 306 Cr. P.C was
recorded on same date. Thereafter, I.O submitted chargesheet
on completion of investigation against altogether 15 accused
persons showing Ram Mohan Singh Munda (A8) and Santosh
Munda @ Tipru Burma (A11) have been tendered pardon and
made approvers, accordingly they were not charge sheeted.
Prosecution examined accused Ram Mohan Singh Munda as
PW1 on 25.9.2018and 26.09.2018 and his cross-examination
on behalf of petitioner Raja Peter was done on day-to-day
basis till 08/01/2019, thereafter another pardoned accused
Santosh Burma @ Tipru Burma examined before court as
PW2 on 21.02.2019. his examination in chief was concluded
on 28/02/2019 and thereafter his cross-examination on behalf
of accused persons started. Petitioner was given ample
opportunity to cross-examine PW2. His cross-examination by
petitioner Raja Peter was finally concluded on 24/05/2019.
28. It is evident from the reference of the date of the cross-
examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 whose cross-examination has been
concluded on 08.01.2019 and 24.05.2019 respectively. Further It is
stated that the application so filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the
Cr.P.C. said to be filed sometime there in 2019 but the said
application was misplaced therefore, the fresh application was filed
10 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025
2025:JHHC:10433-DB
in the year 2023 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed.
29. This Court considering the said conduct of the present
petitioner not proper one, since, in the case where P.W.-1 and P.W.2
have finally been cross-examined by the petitioner and their cross-
examination have been concluded on 08.01.2019 and 24.05.2019
respectively, why the application for their recall of the cross-
examination has been filed after lapse of more than four years that is
not said to be reasonable approach of the petitioner.
30. Moreover, it appears from the reference of the date made
therein as referred hereinabove, ample opportunity has been given to
the petitioner in order to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and as
such it is not a case where the mandatory requirement of Section
306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has not been followed.
31. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is
of the view that there is no impropriety in order impugned dated
15.06.2024, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order.
32. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Basant/ AFR
11 Cr. M.P. No. 141 of 2025