Dismissed

Gautam Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023A482/13371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge denied accused-cum-applicant's Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to recall prosecution witnesses post-cross-examination and summon another prosecution witness not examined. High Court dismissed the application, holding no case for interference as the sanctity of concluded evidence cannot be compromised at late stages of trial.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order recalling witnesses was dismissed.

Gautam Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13371 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Gautam Bharti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Court), Ghazipur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2014, State vs. Satendra Kumar Ram (arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2014) under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur.

¶6

The applicant is an accused facing trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2014, State vs. Satendra Kumar Ram (arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2014) under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur. The trial has concluded and has proceeded to the stage of address of arguments. The applicant has made an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall prosecution witnesses PW-1 Rajkumar, PW-2 the prosecutrix and another man called Kamaldev Yadav. Regarding PW-1 and PW-2, the case made out in the application is that the accused-applicant wishes to put certain questions to them regarding the place of occurrence, the medical report and some questions regarding the incident. In addition, Kamaldev Yadav has to be summoned as a witness on behalf of prosecution.

¶7

The learned Special Judge held that PW-1 and PW-2 have been cross-examined in detail on behalf of accused and the case is posted for address of arguments. There is absolutely no justification, therefore, in recalling those witnesses at this juncture. So as to the other witness Kamaldev Yadav is concerned, it has been remarked by the Trial Judge that this witness cannot be called at the stage of address of arguments. Also saying that the case is

¶8

very old, the Trial Judge has rejected the application.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant at length in support of this application and learned AGA on behalf of the State, what this Court finds is that PW-1 and PW-2 have been cross-examined by the accused-applicant or at least the applicant has had the opportunity to do so. Now, the applicant wants to put some further questions to these witnesses when the trial has reached to the stage of address of arguments after closurse of evidence of all parties. The applicant does not indicate what specific questions he wishes to ask to these witnesses. It is vaguely said that the questions are about the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the medical report. At a belated stage, when the trial has proceeded to the stage of address of arguments, prosecution witnesses cannot be recalled for the sake of permitting the accused to fill in lacunae in evidence.

¶10

So far as the other witness Kamaldev Yadav is concerned, the prayer as regards him is indeed very novel. The said witness is cited in the charge-sheet calendar at serial No.5 but was never called by the prosecution. Out of the witnesses proposed to be examined in the charge-sheet, it is up to the prosecution to decide whom they would examine to prove the case. Merely because the name of a witness has figured in the charge-sheet as a prosecution witness, the accused does not get a right, much less right under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to call him to the dock and examine him. To compel the prosecution to call a person as their witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the accused would be a most anomalous exercise of jurisdiction. It would have been a different matter if the witness had been examined and there was something pointed out necessary to be asked of the witness like the others. Of course, if the applicant thought that this witness was made very material, he could call the witness as a defence witness which has not been done and the trial has been permitted to proceed to the stage of address of arguments.

¶11

In the above conspectus, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out.

¶12

The application is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.4.2023/Vijay

¶14

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

Gautam Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Bharti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Jagdish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meraj Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hridayanand and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Mohammad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another