Dismissed¶11

Shahjad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020A482/11929/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shahjad v. State of U.P. and Another, Application U/S 482 No. 11929 of 2020, decided 10.7.2020 by Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition dismissed; trial court's refusal to recall PW-2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. upheld. Search terms: recall of witness, further cross-examination, mistake of counsel, statement under pressure and coercion, fill lacunae in evidence, eleven more questions, application 46 Kha, POCSO Act Section 33(5), victim not to be called again and again in the witness box.

What did the court decide?

A plea that the witness's earlier statement was made under pressure and coercion does not constitute a valid ground for recalling the witness for further cross-examination. ¶8

Shahjad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11929 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shahjad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Sri Aditya Kumar Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in challenging the order dated 18.3.2020, whereby the trial court has rejected the application 46 Kha filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-2 for cross-examination. According to the application 46 Kha, the petitioner intends to ask eleven more questions from PW-2. It has been recorded in the impugned order that during previous cross-examination, all these questions were, in way or the other, asked from PW-2. It has also been recorded that question no.3 whether the wintess had met the accused Shahjad before the incident or not, has no relevance to the case at hand. It has also been held that since the matter relates to POCSO Act, therefore, in view of Section 33 (5) of the said Act, a victim cannot be called again and again in the witness box.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier statement was made by PW-3 in court under pressure and coercion and in order to prove the said fact, the witness is being recalled for further cross-examination.

¶8

In my opinion, the same cannot constitute a valid ground for recalling a witness for further cross-examination. It is noteworthy that in the application, the only ground mentioned for recalling PW-2 for further cross-examination is that by mistake of counsel, certain questions could not be put to her.

¶9

The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to advance cause of justice for arriving at a just decision and not to facilitate a party to fill lacunae in its evidence. Moreover, as noted by the court below, the witness had already been subjected to cross-examination covering all the points now sought to be put to her.

¶10

It is not a fit case for interference in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶13

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 SL

Shahjad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Tej Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandrama Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeet @ Sumit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others