Ramesh Pal vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh Pal vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's prayer to quash the order dated 17.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi (which had rejected his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application) should be allowed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of records, the applicant had availed ample opportunity of cross-examining P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi.

Key takeaways

The applicant's previous counsel had already cross-examined P.W.-2 at length, and there was no necessity to re-examine the said witness for the just decision of the case.ratio¶15
The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., moved after 15 years, was merely a delay tactic on the part of the applicant to prolong the trial proceedings.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21300 of 2025, decided 16 September 2025: Ramesh Pal v. State of U.P. and Another. Prayer to quash the order dated 17.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi, passed in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2017 (State Vs. Sharif Deewan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2007, under Sections 364A IPC, Police Station-Sigra, District-Varanasi, which had rejected the accused-applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi — DISMISSED. From the records it transpired that the previous counsel had cross-examined P.W.-2 at length and there was no necessity to re-examine him for the just decision of the case; the applicant had availed ample opportunity of cross-examining P.W.-2, and the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application moved after 15 years was merely a delay tactic to prolong the trial proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant had relied on Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008(2) Supreme 718 ('Failure to hear material witness is certainly denial of fair trial'); the Court nonetheless found no merit in the matter and dismissed the application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21300 of 2025

Ramesh Pal

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashwini Srivastava	Kumar,	Ganesh	Shanker
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 78

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2017 (State Vs. Sharif Deewan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2007, under Sections 364A IPC, Police Station-Sigra, District-Varanasi.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being an accused had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the crossexamination of P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi but the same has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi vide order dated 17.02.2025. It has further been submitted that the applicantaccused remained in jail for a period of eight months and due to mental agony and lack of legal knowledge, he could not foresee the consequences of the improper cross-examination of P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi. As he engaged another counsel who had informed him that P.W.-2 was not crossexamined on several aspects, therefore, a fresh opportunity be needed to reexamine the said witness.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Apex Court decision in Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2008(2)

NA528 No. 21300 of 2025

2

Supreme 718 wherein it has been held that "Failure to hear material witness is certainly denial of fair trial."

Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi was examined in the year 2010 and the applicant-accused was given ample opportunities to crossexamine the said witness for a stretch of three months.

From the records, it transpires that the previous counsel for the applicant had cross-examined P.W.-2 at length and there was no necessity to re-examine the said witness for the just decision of the case. As the matter pertains to the year 2007, therefore, it was merely a delay tactics on the part of the applicant to prolong the trial proceedings.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of records, it can be discerned that the applicant has availed ample opportunity of crossexamining the P.W.-2 Gaurav Kumar Dwivedi, and merely to delay the trial proceedings, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved after 15 years.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the matter and the application is dismissed .

September 16, 2025 Shivani

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad