In this criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to summon a prosecution informant as a defence witness. The court found the order sustainable and no error of law.
The criminal revision was dismissed.
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. - 2024:AHC:108566
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 26 of 2024
Revisionist :- Satish Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the materials available on record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist, namely, Satish, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Ist, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Session Trial No. 612 of 2017 (State Vs. Satish), arising out of Case Crime No. 0365 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court, Ist, Gautam Buddh Nagar, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist- Satish is accused in this case and is facing trail under Section 302 I.P.C. After recording the statements of all the prosecution witnesses before the trail court, the revisionist moved an application dated 22.11.2023 for summoning Smt. Savita Yadav (informant of this case) and Mr. Nagendra Yadav as defence witnesses, which has been partly allowed vide order dated 30.11.2023 whereby witness Nagendra Yadav has been summoned because he is eye-witness of the incident and summoning of Smt. Savita Yadav has been refused as her statement has already been recorded before the trail court as PW-1.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that since Smt. Savita Yadav is informant of this case and her statement has already been recorded as PW1, therefore she cannot be summoned as defence witness. The application dated 22.11.2023 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived in this regard and has been moved on behalf of the revisionist only with a view to linger on the proceedings of the case. Hence, the trial court has committed no illegality in passing the order dated 30.11.2023.
Under the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial court in refusing the prayer of the revisionist qua Smt. Savit Yadav are fully sustainable. There appears no abuse of the process of the Court also. There is no evidence on record to satisfy this Court that trial would be seriously prejudiced if the said witnesses are not summoned. I do not find manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the trial court.
The instant criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Kashifa
Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 refusing to summon prosecution informant Smt. Savita Yadav as a defence witness is sustainable.
Whether there is any abuse of the process of the court or manifest error of law in the trial court's decision.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish
State Of Up
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
