Dismissed¶24

Gyanendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025A482/8343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall of witness refused; further cross-examination denied; Section 528 BNSS application; dowry death trial Sections 498-A 304-B IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; new counsel claims improper earlier cross-examination; delay of trial; extraordinary power not routine; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manoj Bajaj, J.; Sultanpur; Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018; P.W.-1 Ravi Prakash Singh; Baljinder Singh @ Gogi v. State of Punjab CRM-M-14140-2022.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no merit in the application: concededly all prosecution witnesses have been examined and recall of P.W.-1 was sought after nearly seven years, although his deposition was completed on 30.07.2018 and the defence had already cross-examined him on two dates. ¶15

Gyanendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 dismissing the applicant's application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of P.W.-1 for further cross-examination should be set aside and the applicant granted another opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

¶14

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The sole ground for recalling the witness for further cross-examination (that the earlier defence counsel did not conduct the cross-examination properly) is not sufficient, much less convincing; applications for recall tend to make witnesses drift away from the prosecution case and must be dealt with care and caution.

¶16

Key takeaways

Section 311 Cr.P.C. vests an extraordinary power to summon, recall or re-examine a witness, but it cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner; it is justified only where the trial court finds its exercise necessary in order to reach the truth.ratio¶17
Considering the sole ground raised, this Court finds that the trial court rightly declined the request, as this kind of ground can be raised by accused persons with an oblique motive to delay the trial proceedings.ratio¶17
The trial court considered the merits of the application in accordance with law and rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; the impugned order suffers from no illegality or impropriety and no interference is called for.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manoj Bajaj, J.; APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8343 of 2025; decided October 8, 2025. Application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sultanpur (Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018, dowry death case under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Karaundikala, District Sultanpur) dismissing the applicant's Section 311 CrPC prayer to recall P.W.-1 for further cross-examination — DISMISSED. Held: recall sought nearly seven years after the deposition was completed on 30.07.2018, on the sole ground that the earlier defence counsel did not conduct the cross-examination properly, is neither sufficient nor convincing; Section 311 Cr.P.C. power is extraordinary, cannot be exercised routinely, and such pleas may carry an oblique motive to delay trial. Relied on Baljinder Singh @ Gogi v. State of Punjab (P&H HC, CRM-M-14140-2022, 07.04.2022). Impugned order found free of illegality or impropriety; no interference warranted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8343 of 2025

¶3

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶9

The Applicant-Gyandendra Pratap Singh has filed this application under Section 528 of BNSS to challenge the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018, State Vs. Santosh Kumar and Other arising out of case crime no. 195 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Karaundikala, District Sultanpur, whereby his application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of P.W. 1 for cross-examination has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is facing prosecution for alleged commission of offense of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, etc. along with other accused persons. He submits that the prosecution witnesses have been examined including P.W.-1, Ravi Prakash Singh, who was examined on 30.07.2018 and 30.05.2019, but his cross-examination was not conducted properly, therefore, an application was moved on 30.06.2025 for recalling P.W.-1, Ravi Prakash Singh for further cross-examination.

¶11

According to him, right of an accused to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right, and if, the said witness is recalled for prosecution crossexamination, no prejudice would be suffered by the prosecution, whereas the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the said application through the impugned order dated 21.08.2025. He prays that the

¶12

A482 No. 8343 of 2025

¶13

¶14

impugned order be set-aside and the applicant be granted another opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submission, this Court does not find any merit in the application as concededly all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and recall of P.W.-1 has been prayed for after a period of nearly seven years. The deposition of this witness was completed on 30.07.2018 and it is also evident from the deposition sheet of P.W.-1 that the defence had conducted his crossexamination on two dates. Though the copy of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness moved before the trial Court has not been placed on record, but during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel that the witness is being recalled solely on the ground that the earlier defence counsel did not conduct the cross examination of the witness properly, and the application was moved on the advice of the new defence counsel representing the accusedapplicant.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, the sole ground raised for recalling the witness for further cross-examination is not at all sufficient, much less convincing, as many a times after recall, the witness tends to drift away from the prosecution case to throw doubt, therefore, such applications are required to be dealt with care and caution.

¶17

Of course, Section 311 Cr.P.C. vests extraordinary power with the trial court to summon, recall or re-examine any person or witness during any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, but such a power cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner. In case, the trial court considering the facts and other attending circumstances of the case finds that the exercise of power vested in Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary in order to reach the truth, the exercise of such power would be justified. Thus, considering the sole ground raised in the application moved by the applicant seeking recall of PW-1, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly declined the request as this kind of a ground can be raised by accused person(s), with an oblique motive to delay the trial proceedings.

¶18

Here, it will be useful to refer the decision by the Punjab and Haryana,

¶19

A482 No. 8343 of 2025

¶20

¶21

High Court dated 07.04.2022 delivered in Baljinder Singh @ Gogi vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-14140-2022], wherein, while considering the identical issue, the High Court had made the following observations:-

¶22

"The cross-examination of a witness of an adverse party or a hostile witness is an art and every lawyer as an individual, may have different ways of grilling the witness in order to test the truthfulness and credibility of such deposition recorded during examination-in-chief, so, there cannot be a stereo typed questionnaire to be used by lawyer during cross-examination, as much would also depend upon the answers of the witness. Of-course the cross-examination may appear like a battle between un-equals, where a rustic witness is cross-examined by a lawyer, but the ground that the previous defence lawyer was not skillful or the new lawyer is more refined is not worth acceptance, particularly when there is no suggestion that the previous defence lawyer did not pursue the interest of accused honestly. If, such a ground is accepted for exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C this would not only add delay in conclusion of trial proceedings, but would also put extra burden upon the trial Judge to evaluate the multiple depositions of a witness. Also, the trial Courts have to be very careful while dealing with such type of prayers, and must bear in mind that many a times it has been noticed that the recalled witness retracts from the testimony recorded earlier and it results in damage to the prosecution case."

¶23

Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial Court has considered the merits of the application in accordance with law and has rightly refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶26

October 8, 2025 Anurag

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyanendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Satyapal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Asad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gangasaran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Awdhesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rukmani Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others