Dismissed

Raghvendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2018A482/94/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to quash an order rejecting his request to summon defence witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court observed that no cause for summoning was established and thus dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissing the quashing of the trial court order rejecting summoning of witnesses.

Raghvendra @ Kalu Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 94 of 2018 Applicant :- Raghvendra @ Kalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 3 Aligarh in Session Trial No. 109 of 2003 (State Vs. Robi @ Sanjiv & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 307/2002, under Section 302 I.P.C., at Police Station Gandhipark, District Aligarh. Whereby application of applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the witnesses constable Ashok Kumar and Ram Dulare in defence was rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contended that constables Ashok Kumar and Ram Dulare are the material witnesses to decide the case on merit. They were neither examined by Investigating Officer during investigation nor produced by prosecution during trial. Investigating Officer Shri R. K. Sharma has admitted in his cross examination that when he reached on the spot, constables Ashok Kumar and Ram Dulare met him.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by trial court.

¶8

From the perusal of impugned order dated 30.11.2017, it is evident that prosecution has closed its evidence in the year 2015. After that the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2017. Session trial was fixed on 17.07.2017, 27.07.2017, 10.08.2017, 21.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 14.09.2017, 20.09.2017, 05.10.2017, 12.10.2017, 24.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 for defence evidence. From defence side on 04.02.2015, defence witness Karan Pal Singh was examined thereafter no evidence was adduced. On 30.10.2017 by passing a detailed order, defence evidence was closed and case was fixed on 08.11.2017 for argument. Accused persons have not submitted any material before trial court to show that constables Ashok Kumar and Ram Dulare were eye witnesses of

¶9

occurrence or in any way material witness in the case.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant also could not show, how non examination of these two witnesses would cause prejudice to defence.

¶11

In view of above, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned trial court.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 10.1.2018/Sharad/-

Raghvendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zahid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh @ Bade Vs State of U.P.

Munnu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sukkhu Vs State of U.P.