Dismissed

Suman v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/5590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5. Court held the request was made solely to delay the trial post-cross-examination of the main witness and was not relevant given the settled facts of the case.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 was dismissed as a delay tactic.

Suman Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44883

¶3

Court No. - 13

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5590 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Suman

¶6

Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan,Bhoopendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to set aside the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao, in Sessions Trial No. 1261 of 2022 (State vs. Devesh Shukla & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 615 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Unnao as also to direct the trial Court to recall/summon witnesses of the prosecution namely S.I. Santosh Kumar/PW-4 and Rajesh Pathak/PW-5 for further cross-examination.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the FIR bearing No. 0615 of 2022 was lodged by the informant-Smt. Rajnandini on 06.08.2022 at about 21:30 Hours under Section 143, 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictUnnao, against three named persons and 5-6 unknown persons, which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the application.

¶12

¶13

After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant/Suman and co-accused/Devesh Shukla. The trial Court based upon the material available on record framed the charge on 19.01.2023 under Section 302 & 34 IPC against the applicant and co-accused Devesh Shukla and upon denial they were put to trial.

¶14

Before the trial Court informant-Rajnandini/PW-1, wife of deceased, was examined and cross-examined and thereafter, on an application preferred by the defence the case was fixed for 25.05.2023 for further cross-examination of Rajnandini/PW-1 but on 25.05.2023 again an application for adjournment of cross-examination of Rajnandini/PW-1 was preferred, which was rejected by the trial Court on 25.05.2023 and by this order opportunity to cross-examine Rajnandini/PW-1 was closed. Thereafter, other witnesses of prosecution namely Krishna Shukla/PW-2, Dr. Amit Srivastava/PW-3, S.I. Santosh Kumar/PW-4, Rajesh Pathak/PW-5, Constable Pradeep Maurya/PW-6 were also examined and cross-examined on different dates.

¶15

After closing the evidence of prosecution, the matter was fixed for 10.05.2024 for recording statements of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the said date, an application bearing No. 28Ka under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the defence for cross-examining Rajnandini/PW-1, which was allowed by the trial Court on 10.05.2024 and in terms of order of trial Court, Rajnandini/PW-1 was again crossexamined, at length on 30.05.2024 and at this stage of crossexamination, Rajnandini/PW-1 stated that when she reached the

¶16

¶17

situs crime she found that knife was inside the chest of her husband. The relevant part of was examination of Rajnandini/PW-1 reads as under:-

¶18

"मैं मौके पर पहुँची तो मैने अपने पतित के सीने में चाकू धँसा हुआ देखा था। उ्ሹ बात मैंने अपनी एफ०आई०आर० में नही लि&खायी थी। परन्तु चाकू सीने में धँसा होने वा&ी बात मैने विववेचक को बताई थी अगर नही लि&खा तो मैं वजह नहीं बता सकती।"

¶19

On 31.05.2024 an application bearing No. 32Ka was preferred by the defence under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which bears the name of both the accused namely Suman (present applicant) and Devesh Shukla. The application has been preferred on the basis of part of statement of Rajnandini/PW-1, which is, quoted above. The application dated 31.05.2024 reads as under:-

¶20

"विनवेदन है विक उ्ሹ वाद में अभि/योजन साቌኚय क& विदनॉक 30/05/2024 को समा्቎ हो चुका है प्ቔाव&ी आज विदनॉक 31/05/2024 को 313 सी०आर०पी०सी० पर विनयत है उ्ሹ वाद में विववेचक पी०डब्ल्यू-5 राजेश पाठक का साቌኚय 02/05/2024 को पू्ቓ: हो चुका है तथा पी०डब्ल्यू-4 पचायतनामा करने वा&े उपविनरी्ቌक सन्तोष कुमार राय का बयान 08/02/2024 को पू्ቓ: हो चुका है जबविक उ्ሹ वाद मे तथ्य के सा्ቌी/वाविदनी की जिजरह क& विदनॉक 30/05/2024 को पू्ቓ: हुई अथा:त तथ्य के साቌኚय के पूव: ही विववेचक और पंचायतनामा करने वा&े उपविनरी्ቌक का बयान सम्प्ቐ हो चुका है।

¶21

क& विदनांक 30.05.2024 को तथ्य की सा्ቌी/वाविदनी ने अपनी जिजरह के दौरान कई नए साቌኚय न्याया&य पी०डब्ल्यू-1 राजनन्दनी ने जिजरह में्ቚ

¶22

कट विकये। जैसे पेज नं० 17 पर पी०डब्ल्यू-1 ने कहा है विक जब "मैं मौके पर पहुँची तो मैने अपने पतित के सीने में चाकू धँसा हुआ देखा था। उ्ሹ बात मैंने अपनी एफ०आई०आर० में नही लि&खायी थी। परन्तु चाकू सीने में धँसा होने वा&ी बात मैने विववेचक को बताई थी अगर नही लि&खा तो मैं वजह नहीं बता सकती।"

¶23

इसके अतितरिर्ሹ अनेक ऐसे तथ्य पी०डब्ल्यू -1 वाविदनी ्ቛारा जिजरह के दौरान न्याया&य के सम्ቌ कहे गये है जो न तो एफ०आई०आर में और न ही बयान 161 सी०आर०पी०सी० में है।

¶24

उ्ሹ नवीन तथ्यों का उ्ቤेख पी०डब्ल्यू -1 वाविदनी ने अपनी जिजरह के दौरान पेज नं० 4 &गायत पेज नं० 4 &गायत पेज नं० 17 तक विकये है पी०डब्ल्यू -1 से जिजरह के दौरान आये उ्ሹ नये तथ्यो पर न्यायविहत में उ्ሹ वाद के विववेचक पी०डब्ल्यू -5 राजेश पाठक व पी०डब्ल्यू -4 उपविनरी्ቌक

¶25

¶26

सन्तोष कुमार से ्ቚतित परी्ቌा विकया जाना आवश्यक है जिजससे सही तथ्य्ቦ ीमान जी के सम्ቌ आ सके और विन्ቓ:य के समय न्याया&य सही और वास्तविवक तथ्यों तक पहुँच सके। चूँविक तथ्य की सा्ቌी पी०डब्ल्यू -1 राजनन्दनी का साቌኚय बाद में सम्प्ቐ हुआ और पूव: में ही पी०डब्ल्यू -5 व पी०डब्ल्यू -4 का साቌኚय सम्प्ቐ हो चुका था इसलि&ये पी०डब्ल्यू -1 ्ቛारा जिजरह के दौरान ्ቚकट विकये गये नये तथ्यों पर जिजरह नहीं हो सकी।

¶27

अतः ्ቦीमान जी से विनवेदन है विक सही न्याय विवविन्ቐय के लि&ये सा्ቌी पी०डब्ल्यू-5 विववेचक राजेश पाठक व पी०डब्ल्यू-4 उपविनरी्ቌक सन्तोष कुमार राय को नये तथ्यो पर ्ቚतित परी्ቌा हेतु आहुत करने की कृपा करे।"

¶28

The trial Court, after considering the facts indicated in the application dated 31.05.2023 preferred by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the application by the impugned order dated 03.06.2024.

¶29

In the aforesaid background of the case, present application has been filed by the applicant.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant pressed the present application on the following grounds:-

¶31

"a. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law.

¶32

b. The learned court below exceeded its jurisdiction by misinterpreting the material on record, while dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner.

¶33

c. The summoning of the material witness is a recognized process and further opportunity for the accused to prove his innocence as well as for the just decision of the case, which ought to be provided by learned Trial court, if requested for, nevertheless with circumspection to unveil the concealed truth either by the prosecution or by accused.

¶34

d. If the learned Trial court will proceed in such manner the innocent petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.

¶35

e. The preamble of the Constitution of India, provides to every citizen of India; equality of status and opportunity and in view of this if the opportunity for proving its case is provided to prosecution the same is

¶36

¶37

also provided to the accused to defend himself and if the necessary witnesses be summoned by learned trial court as per request of petitioner for his further cross examination, then no prejudice is going to cause to the prosecution, but if no suitable order has been passed upon the said application for summoning of witnesses, which is clear misuse of the process of law and great miscarriage of justice.

¶38

f. From the perusal of the impugned orders it is also evident that there is no finding of the learned trial court that the defence have adopted any delayed tactic in the above said trial proceeding, therefore, the rejection of the application for recall of the witness filed under section 311 Cr.P.C is not tenable in the eyes of law."

¶39

Learned AGA opposed the present application. He stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. itself was vague and mis-conceived as therein no reason has been assigned for recalling of the witnesses and further, that the application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial by newly engaged counsel, which is impermissible and in these circumstances of the case, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court after taking note of relevant proposition settled in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2019 (14) SCC 328 and Zahira Hibibullah Sheikh & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2006 (2) SCC Crl.

¶40

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶41

Taking note of the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 03.06.2024 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar

¶42

¶43

and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762 as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another), this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 03.06.2024. It is for the following reasons:-

¶44

(i) Rajnandini/PW-1 witness of fact (informant and wife of deceased) was cross examined and in terms of order dated 10.05.2024 passed on an application dated 10.05.2024 by the defence under Section 311 Cr.P.C., Rajnandini/PW-1 was summoned and this witness was cross examined, at length, on 29.05.2024 and 30.05.2024.

¶45

(ii) On 31.05.2024 the case was fixed for recording statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on this date the defence moved another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of formal witnesses namely S.I. Santosh Kumar/PW-4 and Investigation Officer Rajesh Kumar/PW-5, who were duly cross examined and in the facts of the case, further cross examination of these formal witnesses, to the view of this Court, would not be relevant in view of fact that according to statement of Rajnandini/PW-1, in examination-inchief, accused Dinesh Shukla caused the injury with knife to the deceased and further, as per Rajnandini/PW-1, in crossexamination, the same was recovered on pointing out of accused Dinesh Shukla by the prosecution. Thus, in cross examination no new fact was stated by Rajnandini/PW-1.

¶46

(iii) The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 31.05.2024, in the facts indicated above, to the view of this Court, was moved with sole intention to delay the trial.

¶47

¶48

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶49

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Vinay/-

¶50

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

Suman v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

X (Minor) Thru His Mother Z vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sumit Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharamraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Lko. and Another

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Prabhat Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others