This criminal revision challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the application was filed at a belated stage primarily to delay the trial after prior crossexamination, finding no grounds for interference.
Criminal revision dismissed with interim order discharged.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189441
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2791 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dwijendra Prasad
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Pramod Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 20.04.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6 (Rape and P.O.C.S.O. Act), Kasganj, in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 451 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, by which application filed on behalf of revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that some relevant questions were not asked from PW-1 during her crossexamination by earlier counsel, which are relevant for proper adjudication of the case. The application filed on behalf of revisionist / accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been rejected by learned trial court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 submits that the opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the present criminal revision is allowed.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The learned trial court has recorded the finding that the statement of victim, who appeared as PW-1 was recorded on 23.10.2019 and after about four years, the present application has been filed by the revisionist only to delay the disposal of trial. The learned trial court has further recorded the finding that PW-1 was crossexamined by earlier counsel and after change of counsel, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
revisionist on belated stage.
In view of above, no grounds of interference is made out. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order dated 20.04.2023 rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The criminal revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023 sailesh
Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed at a belated stage to ask new questions during crossexamination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vipin Chandra Dixit
Sailesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
