Allowed

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025CRLR/1205/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall of witness; cross-examination of P.W.-5 medical witness; Dr. Anjana Sahu; inconsistencies in medical report; inadvertence of counsel; miscarriage of justice; P.O.C.S.O Act, 2012 S. 3/4; Sections 323, 376, 506 I.P.C.; Sessions Trial No.1270 of 2017; Case Crime No.460 of 2017; P.S. Malihahad, Lucknow; order dated 28.08.2025 set aside; one-date cross-examination

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; impugned order dated 28.08.2025 set aside; trial court directed to fix one date for appearance of P.W.-5 Dr. Anjana Sahu, on which the revisionist shall complete her cross-e

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1205 of 2025

¶3

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Prem Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶10

The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Court No.3, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1270 of 2017; State vs. Awadhesh Rawat, arising out of Case Crime No.460 of 2017 registered under Sections 323, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O Act, 2012, Police Station Malihahad, District Lucknow, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rejected.

¶11

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that P.W.-5 Dr. Anjana Sahu had appeared before the trial court and her examination-inchief had been recorded but due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel representing revisionist in the trial, no cross-examination of P.W5 was done on his behalf. It has further been contended that there are contradictions and inconsistency in the medical report, therefore, crossexamination of P.W.-5 is necessary for arriving at a correct conclusion.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that it is well settled proposition of law that the trial court is empowered under Section

¶13

CRLR No. 1205 of 2025

¶14

¶15

311 Cr.P.C to recall any witness for his cross-examination, if it is of the view that non cross-examination shall result in miscarriage of justice to either of the parties. It has further been argued that it is apparent from the face of record that no cross-examination of P.W.-5 has been done on behalf of the revisionist, therefore, the inconsistency in the medical report could not be proved and there is every possibility that non crossexamination of P.W.-5 shall amount to miscarriage of justice to the revisionist. It has also been argued that for arriving at a proper conclusion, it is necessary that the opportunity may be given to the accused to cross-examine the witness.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not justify, as to when the P.W.-5 has not been examined at all, then why one opportunity may not be given to the revisionist to cross-examine the P.W.-5.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that it is admitted case on the face of the order impugned in this criminal revision that the P.W.-5 Dr Anjana Sahu has not been cross-examined by the counsel representing revisionist in the trial. It is also apparent from the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that he has pleaded inconsistencies in the medical report, therefore, cross-examination of P.W.-5 is essential to arrive at a correct conclusion in the trial.

¶18

This Court finds that the basic purpose of the power bestowed upon the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is that the trial court may recall any witness for recording his testimony so that there may not be any miscarriage of justice to any of the parties. In the present case, I find that since P.W.-5 has not been cross-examined at all by the counsel representing revisionist, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that she may be recalled on one particular date and on that date itself the counsel, representing revisionist in the trial, may complete her cross-examination.

¶19

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal revision is allowed . The order dated 28.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O.

¶20

CRLR No. 1205 of 2025

¶21

¶22

Act, Court No.3, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1270 of 2017; State vs. Awadhesh Rawat, is hereby set-aside.

¶23

The trial court is hereby directed to fix one date for appearance of P.W.-5 Dr.Anjana Sahu before the trial court and the revisionist shall complete her cross-examination on the said date itself.

¶24

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶25

October 28, 2025

¶26

Renu/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile a Thru. His Brother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Gopal Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Salim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Awdhesh Kumar @ Awdhesh Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Anurag Singh @ Annu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another