Dismissed

Parmanand Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/13649/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the prosecutrix for cross-examining her on contradictions in earlier statements. The bench held that since she was already cross-examined, a change in counsel was not a valid ground to grant relief under Section 311 Cr.P.C. under public policy.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there was no valid ground to recall the witness given she was already cross-examined.

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13649 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Parmanand Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application seeking to challenge the order dated 21.02.2023 whereby the applicant's application to recall the prosecutrix, P.W. 4 in Special Session Trial No. 04 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2018), State v. Parmanand Yadav, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Ghorawal, District - Sonbhadra has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sonbhadra.

¶6

It appears that the prosecutrix took stand in the dock and was examined, but, later on, the application giving rise to the order impugned was made on the ground that in the previous statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her previous statements to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is a contradiction and that the applicant ought to be given an opportunity to cross-examine her regarding that contradiction in her previous statements. The learned Trial Judge has rejected this application, not finding any merit in it and holding it a ploy to delay trial.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued strenuously before this Court to submit that the learned Trial Judge has committed a manifest error of law in declining the application because the contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix made to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and those under Section 164

¶8

Cr.P.C. are materials, which must be put to her.

¶9

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. were with the accused when the prosecutrix took stand in the dock. She has already been crossexamined on behalf of the accused. There is no good reason assigned why the contradiction that has now occurred to the accused, was not made the basis of putting relevant questions, if the accused thinks so, at the time when the prosecutrix was in the witness box.

¶10

This Court asked learned Counsel for the applicant a pointed question whether between the cross-examinations earlier held and the application now made, there is a change in the defence Counsel. Mr. Arvind Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant very candidly said on behalf of his client that this is the correct position and there is a change in the defence Counsel.

¶11

A change in Counsel for better legal advice is no ground to grant an Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It has not been pointed out as to what are those specific questions that the applicant proposes to ask, if the witnesses were recalled. Apparently on the ground of better legal advice, an Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted at the cost of delay in trial. If this were to be accepted as a ground for granting an Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., trials of cases would be held up forever. To accept this plea would almost militate against public policy and the policy of law. There is no force in this application.

¶12

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 / Prashant D.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parmanand Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand Yadav 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

Satnam Singh @ Aakash Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prabhat Shankar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jarifudin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another