Allowed

Poonam Nishad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Allahabad allowed the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing a trial court order refusing witness examination. The Court directed the trial court to summon three specific prosecution witnesses for examination within three short dates before recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.11.2023 quashed; direction issued to trial court to summon specified witnesses within three short dates for examination.

Poonam Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3544

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 203 of 2024 Applicant :- Poonam Nishad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Ajai Kumar,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rayees Ahmad Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Rayees Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant. He has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.

¶6

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

¶7

"(i) Quash the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2020 titled as State of U.P. Vs. Deep Narain & Others.

¶8

(ii) Pass an appropriate direction to the learned trial court i.e. District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar to summon Dr. Manju Shiri, who examined the deceased first time, women constable Reeta Devi, who got prepared inquest report and Dr. Noor Ahmad, who head the panel of Doctors conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report in his own handwriting and these witnesses are the material witness in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2020 titled as State of U.P. Vs. Deep Narain & Others to secure fair and proper trial."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that by means of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have requested for examination of those 3 witnesses, namely, (i) Dr. Manju Shiri (ii) Constable Reeta Devi and (iii) Dr. Noor Ahmad, who have been made prosecution witnesses but they have not been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that though the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been closed after examination of 13 prosecution witnesses but the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded till date and thereby examination of the defence witnesses has not started.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that he is not seeking recall of any witness but he is seeking that those witnesses,who have not been examined till date, may be examined in the interest of justice. He has also submitted that if the defence side is not delaying the trial and is making any bonafide request for examination of any witness who have not been examined till date, such opportunity may be provided to the defence in the interest of justice. He has further submitted

¶11

that son of the present petitioners is in jail.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that examination of the prosecution witnesses have been closed and the matter has been fixed for the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶13

On being asked as to whether the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded or not, learned AGA has stated that since learned counsel for the petitioners is stating that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded, therefore, he cannot dispute the aforesaid fact without verifying the same. On being controverted as to whether the witnesses, whose examination is sought by learned counsel for the petitioners, have been examined or not, learned AGA has stated that this fact has already been stated in the impugned order that those witnesses have not been examined.

¶14

Be that as it may, since learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for examination of those prosecution witnesses who have not been examined till date and the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded till date, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the witnesses, who have been indicated in the application dated 17.10.2023 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., may be called for their examination. The learned trial court may fix maximum three short dates ensuring the presence of those witnesses and if the examination of those witnesses is not completed by the parties in those three dates for no plausible reason, the examination of those witnesses may be closed. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment may be given by the learned trial court and after examination of those witnesses, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shall be recorded at the earliest and the trial in question shall be proceeded further as per law.

¶15

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2020 titled as State of U.P. Vs. Deep Narain & Others, is hereby quashed.

¶16

The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 kkv/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Poonam Nishad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Nishad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Saxsena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gobind Rai @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Asjadullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Anwar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Dayashankar (in Charge Sheet Dayashankar Modanwal) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another