Dismissed¶14

Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2025CRLR/6344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall/re-questioning of already-cross-examined witness; belated application at final stage of trial; General Diary entry; Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra; Krishna Maurya; Alok Kumar (P.W. 10, Constable); Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2017 (State Vs. Raj Narayan Giri and Others); rejection of recall application alleged to delay trial; criminal revision dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Manjive Shukla, J.; order dated 07.10.2024; decision dated 7.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the testimony of Sri Alok Kumar had been recorded in 2019 with full opportunity to cross-examine, and the trial was at its final stage, at such a belated stage there was no occasion for the revisionist to file a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall P.W. 10, Sri Alok Kumar. ¶12

Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionist could recall P.W. 10 (Sri Alok Kumar) through an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to ask the question left unasked during cross-examination, namely whether Sri Krishna Maurya was present in the Police Station at the time of the General Diary entry. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

As Sri Alok Kumar had admitted making the General Diary entry (available at Page No. 47 of the revision) and the presence of Krishna Maurya at the time of that entry had not been denied in cross-examination, there was no occasion for the revisionist to ask him further questions regarding Krishna Maurya's presence.

¶12

Key takeaways

The court found no illegality in the order passed by the trial court rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manjive Shukla, J.) dismissed Criminal Revision No. 6344 of 2024 filed by Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra challenging the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sonbhadra rejecting his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall P.W. 10, Sri Alok Kumar (Constable, Police Station Chopan, who made the General Diary entry recording persons arriving with Krishna Maurya to lodge the F.I.R.) so as to ask whether Krishna Maurya was present at the time of the entry. Held: the witness had deposed in 2019 and been fully cross-examined; the trial being at its final stage, recall at so belated a stage was unjustified; the witness had already admitted making the General Diary entry (Page No. 47 of the revision) and Krishna Maurya's presence had not been denied, leaving nothing further to ask; accordingly no illegality was found in the trial court's order and the revision was dismissed as lacking merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105521

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6344 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Udai Prakash Deo Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2017 (State Vs. Raj Narayan Giri and Others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had been rejected.

¶8

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that one Sri Alok Kumar, Constable at Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra had made General Diary entry wherein, it had been mentioned that certain persons along with one Krishna Maurya came to the Police Station for lodging of the F.I.R. It has further been contended that the testimony of the aforesaid Sri Alok Kumar had already been recorded and he had admitted that the General Diary entry was made by him.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the learned counsel representing revisionist in the trial, during cross-examination of Sri Alok Kumar, could not ask a very relevant question that whether Sri Krishna Maurya was present in the Police Station at the time of the aforesaid General Diary entry.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that since relevant question could not be asked, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been filed but the trial court, without considering the relevance of the questions to be asked from Sri Alok Kumar, straightway had rejected the application on the ground that it had been preferred only with an intention to delay the trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that once Sri Alok Kumar had appeared before the trial court as a prosecution witness and he had admitted that the General Diary entry available at Page No. 47 of this criminal revision had been made by him and in the crossexamination, there is no denial of the presence of Sri Krishna Maurya, now there is no occasion for the revisionist to ask the said question from Sri Alok Kumar. He further submits that since the question sought to be asked by the revisionist, prima-facie does not appear to be relevant, there is no occasion for the trial court to exercise its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. therefore, the trial court, while rejecting the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has not committed any error.

¶12

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the testimony of Sri Alok Kumar was recorded way back in the year 2019 and the revisionist was granted full opportunity to cross-examine him. I further find that the trial is at the final stage therefore, at this belated stage, there is no occasion for the revisionist to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the P.W. 10, Sri Alok Kumar. Even otherwise I find that once Sri Alok Kumar, while deposing before the trial court, had admitted that the General Diary entry available at Page No. 47 of this criminal revision, had been made by him and presence of Krishna Maurya at the time of General Diary entry has not been denied, there is no occasion for the revisionist to ask questions from Sri Alok Kumar regarding presence of Krishna Maurya at the time of the aforesaid General Diary entry.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

¶14

Accordingly, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 A. Mandhani

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Chaudhary @ Ravindra v. State of U.P.

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