Dismissed¶18

Aman Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025NA528/42679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of prosecution witnesses; further cross-examination; discrepancy between statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and court deposition; POCSO trial; Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I Amroha; Special Session Trial No.16 of 2023; Case Crime No. 301 of 2022; Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC; Police Station Bachharayun, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha); Section 528 BNSS; Allahabad High Court; Avnish Saxena, J.; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no ground for recalling PW-1 and PW-2, as sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused-applicant to cross-examine them and the cross-examination was in fact carried out; the trial court rightly dismissed the recall application. ¶17

Aman Raj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42679 of 2025

Aman Raj

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 81

¶7

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶8

Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, holding the brief, appears for the applicant and submits that the trial court has dismissed the application moved by the accused-applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that statement of both the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 (informant and the victim) have been recorded on 15.05.2023 and 14.06.2023 respectively and the application has been moved to recall these witnesses for further crossexamination as there is discrepancy in the deposition and statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The trial court has dismissed the application as trial court did not find any merit in the application, hence he seeks interference of this Court to quash the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Amroha in Special Session Trial No.16 of 2023 (State Versus Aman Raj) arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Bachharayun, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶9

Learned A.G.A. is present for State.

¶10

None appears for opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

¶11

There is no point in issuing notice to opposite party no.2.

¶12

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

¶13

The informant, PW-1 has been examined before the court on 15.05.2023. The cross-examination has also been conducted on the same day. Thereafter

¶14

NA528 No. 42679 of 2025

¶15

¶16

PW-2 (victim) has deposed before the court on 14.06.2023 and was crossexamined on the same day. It is thereafter that application has been moved to recall the two witnesses on 23.09.2025. The ground for recall mentioned in the application is that there are some discrepancies in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. viz. the statement recorded before the court. The same is also with the prosecution witness no.1.

¶17

The trial court has rightly considered that there is no ground for recalling the witness as sufficient opportunity has been granted to the applicantaccused to cross-examine the witnesses and the cross-examination has also been carried out by the accused-applicant. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that discrepancy in the statement of the victim-witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and deposition before the court will be taken into consideration at the time of arguments. The application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

The application moved by the accused-applicant under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

November 3, 2025 MN/-

¶20

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Raj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Alamgeer vs U.O.I. Thru. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow

Deepak Urf Lavlesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Shankar Mishra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Harsh Narayan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another