Dismissed

Smt. Ragini Alias Ranu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024CRLR/4052/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 4052 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to the trial court's rejection of an application to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination. The bench upheld the trial court's order, finding no manifest error or perversity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; no interference with impugned order of lower court allowed.

Smt. Ragini Alias Ranu vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135865

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4052 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Smt. Ragini Alias Ranu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the materials available on record.

¶7

2- The present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 309 of 2021 (State Vs. Sanu @ Devendra Tripathi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot whereby application of the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1/Aryan for further crossexamination has been rejected.

¶8

3- The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the revisionist-Smt. Ragini @ Ranu is accused and is facing trial in this case. Examination-in-chief of PW-1 before the trial Court was recorded on 16.11.2022 and his crossexamination was done on 09.02.2023. Thereafter, on 07.06.2024, accused-revisionist moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW1/Aryan for further cross-examination, which has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024.

¶9

4- The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was informant in the present case/murder case of her husband but during investigation, she has been made accused and her son Aryan is eye-witness of the incident, whose examination-in-chief has been

¶10

recorded on 16.11.2022 and he was cross-examined on 09.02.2023 but there are several contradictions in his statement, therefore, the revisionist moved an application no. 48Kha dated 07.06.2024 for recalling PW-1 but the said application has been illegally rejected by the trial Court, whereas, for fair trial, it is necessary to recall PW-1 for further crossexamination. The findings recorded by the trial court while rejecting the application dated 07.06.2024 is perverse and same is liable to be set aside.

¶11

5- On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that any witness cannot be recalled to resile from his previous statement. Since after release of the accused on bail, her son was given in her custody. Thereafter, she has preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 just to get his statement changed. The trial court has committed no illegality in rejecting the said application of the revisionist.

¶12

6- Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that full opportunity of crossexamination with PW-1 was afforded to the accusedrevisionist and lengthy cross-examination running total 11 pages was done from the side of the accused-revisionist. The trial court, while rejecting the application dated 07.06.2024 of the revisionist, has also observed that all the prosecution witnesses of this case has been examined and the revisionist has moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after a lapse of one year and six months without any plausible explanation.

¶13

7- The very use of the words in Section 311 Cr.P.C., such as 'any court', 'at any stage' or 'of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of this Court in any way. However, very width requires corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially

¶14

with circumspection consistently with the provisions of the Code. The object underlying in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record of living ambiguity in the statement of witnesses examined from either side. Determinative factor is whether it is essential for the just decision of the case or not. It is also settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked by the Court to fill up lacuna unless the Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice, it is necessary to invoke to said extraordinary power.

¶15

8- Under the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are fully sustainable. The trial Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application of the revisionist. There appears no abuse of the process of the Court also. I do not find manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the trial court, hence the same is impeccable and no interference is warranted.

¶16

9- The instant criminal revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

10- Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within a week.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Shubham

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ragini Alias Ranu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ragini Alias Ranu v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Shadma Shafaut and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Sardar vs State of Up Others

Sabir Husain vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chandrika @ Kabadi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhola and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another