Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2024A482/5590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's rejection of a request to recall testimony witnesses. The court held that recalling PW-4 and PW-5 was unnecessary as no new facts emerged requiring their re-examination, and the delay application appeared impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the trial court's order and recall witnesses was dismissed.

Suman vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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 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.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

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:-

¶17

"मैं मौके पर पहुँची तो मैने अपने पतित के सीने में चाकू धँसा हुआ देखा था। उक्त 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।"

¶18

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:-

¶19

"विनवेदन है विक उक्त वाद में अभि/योजन साक्ष्य क& विदनॉक 30/05/2024 को समाप्त हो चुका है पत्राव&ी आज विदनॉक 31/05/2024 को 313 सी०आर०पी०सी० पर विनयत है उक्त वाद में विववेचक पी०डब्ल्यू-5 राजेश पाठक का साक्ष्य 02/05/2024 को पूर्ण: हो चुका है तथा पी०डब्ल्यू-4 पचायतनामा करने वा&े उपविनरीक्षक सन्तोष कुमार राय का बयान 08/02/2024 को पूर्ण: हो चुका है जबविक उक्त वाद मे तथ्य के साक्षी/वाविदनी की जिजरह क& विदनॉक 30/05/2024 को पूर्ण: हुई अथा:त तथ्य के साक्ष्य के पूव: ही विववेचक और पंचायतनामा करने वा&े उपविनरीक्षक का बयान सम्पन्न हो चुका है।

¶20

क& विदनांक 30.05.2024 को तथ्य की साक्षी/वाविदनी ने अपनी जिजरह के दौरान कई नए साक्ष्य न्याया&य पी०डब्ल्यू-1 राजनन्दनी ने जिजरह में प्रकट 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। उक्त 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।"

¶21

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

¶22

उक्त नवीन तथ्यों का उल्लेख 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 उक्त नये तथ्यो पर न्यायविहत में उक्त वाद के विववेचक पी०डब्ल्यू -5 राजेश पाठक व पी०डब्ल्यू -4 उपविनरीक्षक

¶23

¶24

सन्तोष कुमार से प्रतित परीक्षा विकया जाना आवश्यक है जिजससे सही तथ्य श्रीमान जी के समक्ष आ सके और विनर्ण:य के समय न्याया&य सही और वास्तविवक तथ्यों तक पहुँच सके। चूँविक तथ्य की साक्षी पी०डब्ल्यू -1 राजनन्दनी का साक्ष्य बाद में सम्पन्न हुआ और पूव: में ही पी०डब्ल्यू -5 व पी०डब्ल्यू -4 का साक्ष्य सम्पन्न हो चुका था इसलि&ये पी०डब्ल्यू -1 द्वारा जिजरह के दौरान प्रकट विकये गये नये तथ्यों पर जिजरह नहीं हो सकी।

¶25

अतः श्रीमान जी से विनवेदन है विक सही न्याय विवविनश्चय के लि&ये साक्षी पी०डब्ल्यू-5 विववेचक राजेश पाठक व पी०डब्ल्यू-4 उपविनरीक्षक सन्तोष कुमार राय को नये तथ्यो पर प्रतित परीक्षा हेतु आहुत करने की कृपा करे।"

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

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."

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

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:-

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Vinay/-

¶48

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

Sarfaraz Ali Jafri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

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

Dinesh Chandra Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Raj Bahadur Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jahidul Islam Mandal vs State of U.P

Mohd. Shakeel @ Shakeel vs the Court of Principal Judge Family Court Sultanpur and Another