Allowed¶20

Juvenile X and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2025CRLR/3400/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of Investigating Officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; IO examined before eyewitnesses PW-5/PW-6; contradictions in prosecution evidence to be elicited; murder trial from FIR No. 1248 of 2023, PS Kotwali City, District Bijnor; juvenile accused tried with majors for heinous offence; Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024, State v. Priyanshu; criminal revision allowed; Allahabad High Court; Siddharth, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:134833; decided 08.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed: impugned order dated 29.04.2025 set aside; applications (Paper Nos. Kha-32 and Kha-33) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed; trial court directed to recall P.W.-4 and proceed with the trial after his re-examination, to be conducted within one month. ¶20

Juvenile X and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly rejected the revisionists' applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-4 (Investigating Officer) for further questioning, when PW-4 had been examined before the eyewitnesses PW-5 and PW-6 and contradictions remained to be elicited from him.

¶13

Court's answer

A number of contradictions were pointed out in the statements of P.W.-4 and such facts are required to be elicited from P.W.-4 before the Court; normally the Investigating Officer is examined after the statements of the eye-witnesses are recorded, therefore the arguments of the revisionists have force and are accepted.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 29.04.2025 rejecting the recall applications is set aside, and the applications (Paper Nos. Kha-32 and Kha-33) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are allowed.

¶19

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to recall P.W.-4 and thereafter proceed with the trial after his re-examination, which shall be conducted within one month.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth, J.) allowed a criminal revision against the order dated 29.04.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor, dismissing the revisionists' applications (Kha-32 & Kha-33) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-4, the Investigating Officer, in Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024 (arising from FIR No. 1248 of 2023, PS Kotwali City, Bijnor, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 504 IPC). Since PW-4 had been examined before the eyewitnesses PW-5 and PW-6, and contradictions regarding the place of incident and the assault required to be elicited from him, the Court held that the Investigating Officer is normally examined after the eye-witnesses, accepted the revisionists' arguments (counsel having relied on Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649), set aside the impugned order, allowed the applications, and directed the trial court to recall PW-4 and conduct his re-examination within one month.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134833

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3400 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionists is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Hemendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The revisionist has assailed the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor in Special Case No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu and others dismissing the applications (Kha-32 & Kha-33) dated 05.04.2024 of the revisionists for recalling PW-4/ Investigating Officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C in Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu Rathi and others regarding the First Information Report lodged on 13.12.2023 in Case Crime No. 1248 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor.

¶9

As per prosecution case, on 13.12.2023 at about 7:30 PM complainant's son, Ashu, aged about 22 years was present at home. His son received a phone call from Rangashu and he reached Nagina Road in front of ITI College where Bhavya @ Happy was present and Babley, Alok, Deepanshu came on two motorcycles and started to hurling abuses on Bhavya @ Happy and his son, Ashu. Same day at about 07:45 PM his son was caught hold by Deepanshu and his unknown friend and coaccused, Babley and Alok Rathi, shoot his son by country made pistols as a result of which his son, Ashu, fell down on ground whereas Bhavya @ Happy got wounded. Complainant reached at that spot and took his son to the hospital, where his son was declared dead by the doctor and Bhavya @ Happy was admitted for treatment.

¶10

In the present case, entire prosecution evidence has been recorded in Sessions Case No. 1094/2024, State Vs. Deepanshu, against the Babley a@ Akshendra, Deepanshu and Aditya who

¶11

are major however, three persons, namely, Alok Rathi, Priyanshu, and Krish, are minors. Their trial has also been transferred into the same court, from the juvenile court as the matter related to heinous offence.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu and others, evidence of PW-4, Amit Kumar, was recorded earlier and thereafter the eidence of eyewitnesses, namely, Bhavya alias Happy (PW-5) and Rikanshu (PW-6) was recorded, though it should have been recorded later and therefore, some important question could not be put to the investigating officer. Therefore, an application was moved on 05.04.2024 for recalling P.W.-4, Amit Kumar. Similar application was also moved on behalf of Priyanshu on 05.04.2025 filed by the co-accused, Priyanshu.

¶13

In the aforesaid applications, it was specifically pointed out that there are a number of contradictions regarding place of incident, maar-peet during incident etc., therefore, the P.W.-4, investigating officer, should be recalled but the learned trial court has rejected the request of the revisionist by impugned order dated 29.04.2025. The order dated 29.04.2025 not permitting the revisionists to cross-examine P.W.-4 / Investigating Officer is not in accordance with law. It is also against the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶14

S.T. No. 1094 of 2024, State vs. Deepanshu is the trial of same incident, dealing major accused persons and while the bail of Deepanshu was rejected on 18.09.2024. A direction of complete the trial within the year was given. However, the entire evidence was completed in March-2025 and as such, it cannot be said that the accused persons are delaying the trial.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon in paragraph 18 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 649 , and has submitted that the court must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions to the witness or a recalled witness.

¶16

Learned A.G.A has opposed the submission made by counsel for the revisionist.

¶17

After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that in the present case, the statement of P.W.-4 was recorded earlier and thereafter the statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 were recorded. P.W.-4 is the Investigating Officer. The statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who are eye-witnesses, were recorded subsequently.

¶18

A number of contradictions were pointed out in the statements of P.W.-4 and such facts are required to be elicited from P.W.-4 before the Court. Normally, the Investigating Officer is examined after the statements of the eye-witnesses are recorded. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist have force and are hereby accepted.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 is set aside.

¶20

The applications, Paper Nos. Kha-32 and Kha-33, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶21

The trial court is directed to recall P.W.-4 and thereafter proceed with the trial, after his re-examination.

¶22

The re-examination of P.W.-4 shall be conducted within one month.

¶23

The criminal revision is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Abhishek