This criminal revision challenged the trial court's order allowing the summons of the deceased's father under Section 311 Cr.P.C. despite him not being a named witness or examined during investigation. The revision was dismissed as the witness's testimony was deemed necessary for a fair decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3232 of 2021
Revisionist :- Zakir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Phool Chandra Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Aligarh in S.T. No. 1984 of 202 arising out of Case Crime No. 368 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Quarshi, District Aligarh, whereby the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was wrongly allowed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2021. He further contended that the impugned order shows that witness, namely, Sharif was summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. although he was neither the witness of the FIR nor he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, therefore, learned trial court wrongly exercised the jurisdiction provided under Section 311 Cr.P.C., therefore, present revision is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no bar for summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. although he was neither nominated in the FIR as a witness nor examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation and if in view of the trial court his testimony is required to arrive for the just decision of the case, then such witness can very well be summoned and in the present matter, the learned trial court rightly exercised his jurisdiction provided under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 shows that the witness, namely Sharif Khan is the father of the deceased and during investigation, the Investigating Officer failed to record his statement, which was necessary to unfold the truth and
application dated 07.04.2021 moved by the opposite party no.2 shows that in paragraph no.2, he specifically stated that the father of the deceased is the main witness and, therefore, his testimony is necessary for the just decision of the present case. As, witness Sharif Khan is the father of the deceased and the present matter is of Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, therefore, his testimony appears to be necessary in the present matter.
In view thereof, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 and the present revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.12.2021 AK Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a witness who was neither recorded in the FIR nor examined during the investigation.
Whether the testimony of the deceased's father is necessary for the just decision of the case under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Zakir
State of U.P. and Another
Sameer Jain
AK Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
