Krishan Chandra Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal, filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), has been preferred to assail the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2010, under Sections 186, 147, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Section 3/4 of the Public Property Damages (Prevention) Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. By the impugned order, the learned court below rejected the application moved by the appellants seeking reexamination or further cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order has caused serious prejudice to the defence and infringed their right to a fair trial. It is urged that due to inadvertence and lapse on the part of earlier counsel, proper cross-examination could not be conducted, and that an opportunity for re-cross-examination was necessary following the framing of a supplementary charge under Section 3/4 of the Public Property Damages (Prevention) Act.

¶11

In opposition, learned A.G.A. submitted that the trial has been pending since the year 2010 and that the appellants' application was nothing but a dilatory tactic intended to delay its conclusion. It was pointed out that the trial court had already granted sufficient opportunity for cross-examination, and that the appellants' own counsel had recorded on the order sheet that no further cross-examination would be conducted.

¶12

Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, particularly the detailed findings in the impugned order dated 01.09.2025, it emerges that a supplementary charge under Section 3/4 of the Public Property Damages (Prevention)

¶13

CRLA No. 9513 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Act was framed on 01.08.2025. On the same date, after the charge was framed, the appellants' counsel categorically endorsed on the order sheet that they had no further evidence to produce and did not wish to conduct any additional cross-examination or re-cross-examination in relation to the supplementary charge.

¶16

The trial court has further noted that the appellants were already aware of the addition of Section 3/4 of the Public Property Damages (Prevention) Act, as they had previously obtained bail under that very provision. The prosecution also clarified that the witnesses had already been cross-examined earlier. The application seeking recall was vague and failed to specify the names of the witnesses or the precise points on which further cross-examination was required. It was filed only after completion of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., evidently with the object of delaying the trial's conclusion.

¶17

This Court finds substance in the reasoning recorded by the learned trial court. The appellants, having expressly declared through their counsel on 01.08.2025 that they had no further evidence or cross-examination to undertake, cannot now claim an indefeasible right to reopen prosecution evidence. The plea of denial of a fair trial is untenable when the opportunity afforded earlier was consciously and voluntarily relinquished by the defence.

¶18

The impugned order reflects due consideration of the facts and circumstances and does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

¶19

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

¶20

The criminal appeal stands dismissed.

¶21

November 6, 2025 RavindraKSingh

¶22

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishan Chandra Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Chandra Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaidev and Another vs State of Up and Another

Shivankar Kumar @ Shivang @ Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Gagan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Mohid and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Ali and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another