Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118595

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 837 of 2025

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kashi Naresh Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶8

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 11.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 243 of 2017 (State Vs. Anil Kumar) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had been rejected.

¶9

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that from bare perusal of the provisions made under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the legislature had made the said provisions so that if any relevant question could not be asked from any witness during his cross-examination, he may be recalled and the substantial justice in the matter may be done. It has further been contended that the revisionist in his application, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had given the questions to be asked from P.W.-1 and P.W.2 and had also demonstrated the relevance of the said questions but the trial court, without considering the relevance of the said questions, straightaway had rejected the application on the ground that it had been filed only just to delay the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the order passed by the trial court reflects total non application of mind, as the relevance of the questions, sought to be asked from P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, has not been discussed at all.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not indicate any reason on the basis of which, the trial court could

¶12

have ignored to consider the relevance of the questions given by the revisionist in his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶13

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the revisionist, in his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had given the details of the questions to be asked from P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and its relevance. For ready reference the relevant portion of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C is extracted as under :-

¶14

"4- यहककपप०डबलल० -1 ननपथमसलचननररपपररअनयननकमतअकभययकगणणकनकवरददरर करनयपथपउसममअपननहपगनगवकनयपगनशकयमनरवअकनलकयमनरकनदनरनपप०डबललए -1 कक आधनरपर बहनउकमयक‌दमनकककथथतपपकडतनकपलनरनतनहहएदनखनरनननकन एफ०आई०आर०दररकरनयपगयपथपऔरबनदममउसपयपगनशकयमनरशमनरकनदनरनदलसरन कथननककनफकसमयबनदबतनयनरनननकनआधनरपरपप०डबलल० -1 ननकथथतकरतनहहए दलसरपतहरपरदनकरकववनचननककधनरनहपमपडदपऔरपनथर / अकभ०कपननकमतकरनकदयन। उककबनदयओगपरथरसनकथथतचकयदशरअकभयपरनसनकपयपगनशकयमनरअथवनयपगनशकयमनर शमनरथरसनअकभयपरनदनरनसनकयहनतयमन०नयनयनलयममपसतयतनहहककयन , कनकवषयमम उसककननमकककवस ग कतवअननयतनसथनकपतकरननहनतयपप०डबलल० -1 वपप०डबलल० -2 महतवपलणरसनकपहह।उनसनउककवषयपरपकतपरपकनहपननआवशयकहहथरनसनउककनसकक वनसतकवकसचचनईपकरहपसकनगप।

¶15

5- यहककएकपहललअग०धनरन -164 सप०आर०पप०सप०ममपपकडतनकनकथनममअकभययक दनरनबयआकनयहनगलनरनननकनउलनखककयनगयनहह।इसकबनदयकनपप०डबलल० -1 व पप०डबलल 0-2 कनदनरनसपषहपननशनषहह।बयआकनकथननकबनदममबयननगयनहहयकदइस तथयपरपकतपरपकनहपकरतथयऔरसपषहणगनथरनसनसतयतनपकरहपसकनगपरपनयनय ककसयगमतनवसमयकचतकनणरयकनआधनरकनकमरतकरमगप।

¶16

6- यहककआयरसमनरमननदरककशनदपअलपगढममहपननवइलनहनबनदवककलकनपनस हनईकपरररनननथरसममयनतनवपप०डबलल० -2 सनमपबनइलफपनकनसमबनधममवअनयतथयण परसमयकचतपकतपरपकननहहहपसककहह।पप०डबलल० -2 सनपयननपकतपरपकनममउकतथयणकन अथधकसपषतनसनअननवरणहपगनरपककघरननककतहममपहहगचकरहपअसतयतनपकरहप सकनगपथरससनपनथप / अकभ०वनसतकवकनयनयपनसकनगन।

¶17

7- यहककअकभयपरनकथननकममकथथतपपकडतनकपकथथतरपसनलनरनतनहहएदनखनरननन कनदनवनकरननवनलनचकयदशरसनकपगणअकभयपरनदनरनमन०नयनयनलयममपसतयतकर उनकनसनकयनहहकरनयनगयन , रबककउनकनदनरनबतनननकपआधनरबननकरपप०डबलल० -1 ननमयकद‌मनपगरपककतकरनयनथरसममउकमयकदमनकककथथतपपकडतनकनगनयबहपननकनअगलन कदनचकयदशरसनकपदनरनरनलवनसरनशनपरकनरममदनखनरनननकनउलनखककयनगयनहहउक कबनदयओगपरपप०डबलल० -1 वपप०डबलल० -2 सनपकतपरपकननहहहपसकक , उकतथयणपर पकतपरपकनकनतननतआवशयकहहथरससनअकभयपरनकथननकककवनसतकवकतनकनकनरपण हपसकन।

¶18

8- यहककरपअकभययकचकयदशरसनकपयपगनशकयमनरदनरनबतनयनरनननपरएफ०आई०आर० ममननकमतककयनगयनथनउनकनसमबनधममपप०डबलल० -1 वपप०डबलल० -2 सनपकतपरपकनमम पशननहहपलछनरनसकनहह।उककबनदयभपपकतपरपकनममपलछनरनननसनछलरगयनहह।उनपरभप पकतपरपकनहपननअपनककतहह। "

¶19

This Court finds that the trial court had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. only for the reason that the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 had already been

¶20

recorded and adequate opportunity had already been given to the accused to cross-examine them but nowhere in the impugned order, there is any discussion about the questions sought to be asked by the revisionist and its relevance.

¶21

This Court is of the view that the provisions under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of any witness had been made only just to prevent the miscarriage of justice therefore, it is incumbent on the trial court to consider the questions sought to be asked from the witness and its relevance for deciding the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 11.2.2025 passed by the trial court, in categorical terms, reflects that the questions given in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its relevance has not been considered by the trial court, at all.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 243 of 2017 (State Vs. Anil Kumar), is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Court No. 3, Aligarh for considering and deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., afresh within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.7.2025

¶24

Gaurav

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and Another

Kalpana Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Munna @ Ibrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Saheed and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Taj Mohammad vs State of U.P. and Another