Dismissed

Manoj v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024CRLR/850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking to recall a victim-witness in a POCSO trial. The Bench held that the application, filed two years after cross-examination, was vague and lacked specific questions, failing to justify the extraordinary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed, and the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the recall application was upheld.

Manoj vs State of Up and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123643

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 850 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,Karunesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the materials available on record.

¶7

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist, namely, Manoj, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Agra, in Special Trial No. 516 of 2016 (State Vs. Manoj), arising out of Case Crime No. 754 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 03.02.2024 moved by the revisionist for recall of PW-1 has been rejected.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is accused in this case and is facing trial. The statement of victim has been recorded as PW-1 on 07.05.2022 and she was also cross-examined from the side of the accusedrevisionist. Thereafter the accused engaged another counsel and he was of the opinion that some relevant questions could not be asked to the victim, therefore, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 03.02.2024 was moved for further crossexamination of PW-1, but the same has been illegally rejected.

¶9

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by contending that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the accused-revisionist after a delay of about two

¶10

years with ulterior motive.

¶11

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that victim was examined on 07.05.2022 and her crossexamination was also done on behalf of the accused. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the revisionist after about two years without disclosing the specific questions, which were relevant to put to the victim for just decision of the case. I also find that trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionist has also considered the provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, wherein it is provided that Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.

¶12

In light of facts and materials on record, I also find that the contents of application dated 03.02.2024 are vague and general in nature. 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 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 03.02.2024 passed by the trial court, hence the same is impeccable and no interference is warranted.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned within two days for information.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Kashifa

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of Up and 3 Others

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

Jitendra vs State of Up

Suraj Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Mohammad and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Gajendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others