Archana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136848

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21003 of 2025

Applicant :- Archana Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Bindu Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

There is no requirement of issuing notice to opposite party no.2.

¶8

The order under challenge in the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2019 (State Vs. Archana), arising out of Case Crime No.445 of 2018, under Sections 302, 328 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

¶9

The order reveals that at the stage of defence evidence, the accused applicant has filed an application to summon the scribe of F.I.R., victim and investigating officer, as per application, of Case Crime No.16 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Karma, District Sonbhadra, Case Crime No.256 of 2018, under Sections 381, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra and Case Crime No.117 of 2019, under Sections 294, 376, 323,506 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

¶10

The trial court while rejecting the application for summoning of the witnesses of another case in the present case has made observation that under Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, the documents are certified copies, which are admissible in evidence. As such, the witnesses of those cases cannot be summoned in the present case. As such, rejected the application, considering not maintainable and fixed the case for argument.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to produce any other witnesses in the matter other than the witnesses of the aforesaid case crime numbers, to establish criminal antecedents of the informant and false implication of accused applicant.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. submits that the application moved by the applicant before the trial court is not maintainable in view of the settled principles of law that the witnesses of one case cannot be examined in another case in respect to the said case.

¶13

This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶14

The prosecution case arose out of F.I.R. lodged by the fatherin-law of accused pertaining to death of her husband. The prosecution evidence is complete. At the time of defence evidence, the application has been moved, whereby the certified copies of the afore-mentioned cases is filed. The prayer in the application is to call the witnesses of those cases in the corresponding sessions trial, just to prove the contexts of the documents.

¶15

Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the certified copies of the documents is admissible in evidence.

¶16

The witnesses, who are named in the application, are the witnesses of the case crime nos. 16 of 2020, 256 of 2018 & 117 of 2019. This is against the basic tenants of law to prove the documents of one case in another case. Moreover, the cases are not related to the present trial.

¶17