Dismissed

Aryan Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025CRLR/4764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC — CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4764 of 2024 — dismissal of challenge to rejection of application 67-Ka u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recall/re-examination of victim at fag end of trial (Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements already recorded) in POCSO/IPC 363-366-376 case (Case Crime 425 of 2019, PS Bakewar, Etawah) — Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) (2013) 5 SCC 741 referred (no recall merely to fill lacuna) —

What the court decided

AI extract

Aryan Alias Jeetu vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4764 of 2024

¶3

Aryan Alias Jeetu

¶4

	Versus		.....Re	visionist(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.	....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Pankaj Narayan	Kumar Singh	Mishra,	Satyendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 93

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Trying Rape Cases POCSO Act, Etawah in Special Case No. 410 of 2020 (State Vs. Aryan alias Jeetu) arising out of Case Crime No. 425 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Bakewar District Etawah, whereby the application 67ka u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Trying Rape Cases POCSO Act, Etawah is illegal and arbitrary, as the statement of the victim before the trial court has been recorded in a hurried manner and few important questions helpful in conclusion of the trial have been left unanswered and were not asked at the relevant time. Therefore at least, a reasonable opportunity should be given to the victim to appear before the court for reexamination, at any appropriate time. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that if this opportunity is lost, the revisionist may not get justice and would be deprived from the same.

¶9

None appears on behalf of the opp. party no. 2, even on revised call.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that as far as the order passed by the

¶11

CRLR No. 4764 of 2024

¶12

¶13

Additional Sessions Judge/ Trying Rape Cases POCSO Act, Etawah is in accordance with law and no infirmity whatsoever has been found in the impugned order under challenge.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the trial is at the stage of conclusion as the statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and no purpose would be served, if the victim is recalled for re-examination and the same is likely to unnecessarily delay the trial. It has also come in the impugned order that the defence was given ample opportunity but he did not turn up for further examination and the statement of witness/ victim has been recorded running into about 10 pages, which appears to be sufficient. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Trying Rape Cases POCSO, Etawah has also referred a judgement of Apex Court in Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) (2013) 5 SCC 741, in which it has been held, that a witness cannot be recalled or re-examined merely for the reason and in order to fill up the gap or lacuna, if any, in the case undergoing trial.

¶15

Having regard to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Trying Rape Cases POCSO, Etawah, the same appears to be in order and no infirmity can be found therein. Moreover, the trial has come at the stage of conclusion and the statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and final judgment is left to be passed by the trial court, no interference is called for by this Court.

¶16

The present revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

It is accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶19

September 10, 2025 Gss

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aryan Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aryan Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Chauhan and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Manju vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Rajat vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Som vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinki vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Dev Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others