Vinod Jatav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92424

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1943 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinod Jatav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 4.1.2025, passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Court No.1, Hathras in S.T. No. 5 of 2017, titled State v. Vinod Jatav and others, arising out of Case Crime No.270 of 2016, under Section 363, 366, 376, 323,342 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sahapau, District Hathras, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that PW-1 (victim) has been examined before the trial Court, and her examination-inchief was recorded on 07.05.2018 and her cross-examination concluded on 10.05.2018. It is contended that during the course of cross-examination, the counsel for the applicant could not put certain pertinent questions to the said witness. In view of this, and in the interest of ensuring a fair trial, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW-1 (victim) for further cross-examination. The said application, however, was rejected by the trial Court with the observation that the attempt to

¶9

recall the witness appeared to be an endeavour to protract the proceedings and delay the conclusion of the trial.

¶10

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application and submitted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature, and such discretion has been judiciously exercised by the trial Court in the present case. Given that the trial has reached the stage of final arguments and the witness sought to be recalled has already been crossexamined, no manifest error or illegality is apparent in the impugned order, and therefore no interference is warranted.

¶11

The scope and ambit of the powers conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. have been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India & Anr., (1991) Supp (1) SCC 271 wherein it has been held that the said power is of the widest amplitude and may be invoked by the court at any stage of the proceedings, provided such action is necessary for a just decision of the case. However, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

¶12

In the present case, while adjudicating upon the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court has duly noted that the matter was at the stage of final arguments and that PW-1 had already been examined and cross-examined at considerable length by the counsel for the accused-applicant. On a careful consideration of the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the request, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the application lacked bona fides and was aimed at stalling the progress of the trial. Consequently, the application for recall of the witness was rejected. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant

¶13

that the trial is at the stage of final arguments. It is also not denied that PW-1 has already been examined-in-chief and cross-examined thoroughly. Furthermore, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not disclose any specific reason or justification as to what additional questions remain to be asked, or how the recall of the witness is necessary for the just adjudication of the case.

¶14

In the absence of any cogent grounds or compelling necessity being demonstrated, and in light of the fact that the trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.

¶15

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 A. Tripathi

¶17

Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Jatav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Jatav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kumari Roshani Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Neelam vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Om Prakash Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sudhir vs State of Up and 2 Others

Saurabh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others