Surya Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

The instant criminal appeal Under Section 14(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 has been filed against the order dated 17.10.2025 arising out of in Case Crime No.641A of 2004, under Section 323/504/325 I.P.C and Under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Sultanpur in ST No.35 of 2008, State VS Surya Pratap Singh pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sultanpur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are accused in the aforesaid criminal case and have challenged the proceedings of the trial court. It is submitted that the examination-in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on 28.03.2011. However, due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the cross-examination of PW-2 could not be completed. In the meantime, the informant filed Application No. 64-Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Rahul and Rohit as additional accused. Proceedings were pending for disposal of the said application, and it was understood that the cross-examination of PW-2 would be conducted after the disposal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶14

However, during the pendency of the said application, the trial court closed the cross-examination of PW-2 vide order dated 02.08.2011. Thereafter, the appellants moved Application No. 88-Kha on 28.09.2016 seeking recall of PW-2 for cross-examination. The said application was

¶15

CRLA No. 89 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

dismissed by the trial court on the ground of delay and laches.

¶18

It has been submitted that the delay in cross-examination of PW-2 and in moving the application for recall was not deliberate but occurred due to the pendency of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the informant for summoning additional accused. The said application was ultimately dismissed after hearing. It is further submitted that closure of crossexamination of PW-2 and dismissal of the recall application has seriously prejudiced the appellants.

¶19

Learned counsel contended that cross-examination of a prosecution witness of fact, particularly an injured witness, is a valuable right of the accused. Without cross-examination, the accused is deprived of the opportunity to impeach the credibility of the witness and to effectively put forth his defence. Therefore, an opportunity of cross-examination ought to have been granted in the interest of justice.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions and argued that the trial court rightly rejected the recall application due to inordinate delay, as the application was filed nearly five years after the closure of crossexamination of PW-2.

¶21

Considering the rival submissions and the limited issue involved, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice to respondent no.2, as it would further delay the disposal of the case, which has been pending since the year 2008.

¶22

Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides as under:

¶23

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

¶24

—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

¶25

A bare perusal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. shows that it casts a mandatory duty upon the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for a just decision of the case. In the present case, PW-2 is a witness of fact as well as an injured witness.

¶26

CRLA No. 89 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

The right of the accused to cross-examine such a witness is a valuable right and is essential for a fair trial.

¶29

The appellants cannot be deprived of this right solely on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when the delay cannot be attributed entirely to them, as the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the informant was pending before the trial court.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the trial court is directed to decide Application No. 88-Kha filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, in light of the observations made hereinabove. The trial court may, in its discretion, allow the application and grant an opportunity of cross-examination of PW-2 to the appellants, subject to payment of reasonable costs to the witness and such other conditions as it deems fit.

¶31

The trial court shall decide the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

Needless to mention, the trial court shall thereafter conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶34

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶35

January 13, 2026 V. Sinha

¶36

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surya Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Vaibhav Tivari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Syam Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Champa Devi @ Champa @ Badka and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Shubham Alias Shubham Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another