Remanded

Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023A482/11365/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the trial court's order rejecting an application to summon three eye witnesses. The Court held that the trial court lacked cogent reasons to close evidence despite the witnesses being listed as eye witnesses in the charge sheet and the ADGC failed to provide justification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 1.3.2023 set aside; trial court directed to re-examine the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. within two weeks.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11365 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: -

¶8

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 1.3.2022 in S.T. No. 79/2017, State vs. Surajpal and others, i.e. Case Crime No. 178(A)/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerpur, District Firozabad pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Firzobad, District Firozbad.

¶9

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding in S.T. No. 79/2017, State vs. Surajpal and others, i.e. Case Crime No. 178(A)/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerpur, District Firozabad pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Firzobad, District Firozbad.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may directed to court below to examine the witnesses namely Satyaprakash, Ram Singh and Atendra in S.T. No. 79/2017, State vs. Surajpal and others, i.e. Case Crime No. 178(A)/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerpur, District Firozabad, or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

¶11

The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 21.11.2008 at 16:30 P.M. as Case Crime No. 178A/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerpur, District Firozabad by the applicant who is the complainant. In the said case Gambhir Singh was medically examined on 13.10.2008 as alleged injured. After investigation

¶12

a Final Report No. 12 of 2008, dated 17.12.2008 was submitted in the matter. Subsequent to it the applicant filed a protest petition before the concerned trial court on which the court concerned directed the matter to be further investigated vide its order dated 24.11.2011. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet no. 36 of 2012 dated 13.6.2012 was submitted against eight (8) accused persons. The trial court took cognizance upon the same vide order dated 30.6.2012. The trial of the matter then started as Sessions Trial No.79 of 2017, State vs. Suraj Pal and others, which was pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-9, Firozabad. In the investigation Jitendra Singh who is the first informant, Gambhir Singh the injured, Rajveer Singh, Pramod Satyaprakash, Ram Singh and Atendra Singh the alleged witnesses were interrogated during investigation whose names find place from serial no. 1 to 8 in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet. In the trial Jitendra Singh was examined as P.W.-1, Gambhir Singh was examined as P.W.-2, Rajveer Singh was examined as P.W.3 and Pramod was examined as P.W.-4. Subsequently on 25.1.2023 the ADGC made a note in the order sheet that he does not want to produce any other witness. The trial court thus on the said date after recording of the statement of the P.W.-4 directed the matter to be posted for recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. An application dated 1.3.2023 supported by an affidavit was moved by the applicant before the trial court that since other three witnesses namely Satyaprakash Singh, Ram Singh and Atendra are also eye witnesses their statements are important and they be summoned and their evidences be recorded. Copy of the said application and the affidavit has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 7 (page-43) to the affidavit, and para-9 of the affidavit has been placed for the same.

¶13

While placing para-10 of the affidavit learned counsel for the applicant argued that the District and Sessions Judge concerned did not consider the application of the applicant in its true perspective and rejected the same vide order dated 1.3.2023. It is argued that the said three witnesses are also important and relevant eye witnesses and no cogent reason whatsoever has been given by the prosecution for not producing them. The trial court has without any cogent reasons and justification considered the noting of ADGC dated 25.1.2023 and has closed the prosecution evidence. It is argued that the order thus be set aside and the court concerned be directed to summon the said three eye witnesses and record their statements.

¶14

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing

¶16

the records, it is evident that said three witnesses namely Satyaprakash Singh, Ram Singh and Atendra who were interrogated as eye witnesses during investigation have not been examined before the trial court. ADGC made a note on 25.1.2023 after recording evidence of P.W.-4 that he does not want to produce any other witnesses. The trial court thus closed the evidence and posted the matter for recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The applicant who is the complaint of the case, moved an application supported by an affidavit dated 1.3.2023 before the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the said three witnesses and recording their evidences, but the trial court has rejected the said application vide order dated 1.3.2023. There is absolutely no reason given by the prosecution as to why the said three witnesses are not being produced, even in spite of the fact that they were arrayed as eye witness in the charge sheet. The trial court has although relied upon noting of ADGC that he does not want to produce any other witnesses after P.W.-4 and closed the evidence but the same was without any cogent reason given by the prosecution.

¶17

In view of the same the order dated 1.3.2023 is set set aside.

¶18

The trial court concerned is directed to re-examine the application dated 1.3.2023 moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the applicant Jitendra Singh and pass appropriate orders on it as per law within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

The present applicant is disposed of.

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 4.4.2023

¶22

{Naresh}

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Thakur Alias Thakur Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Natt Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haseen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.