Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2785 of 2026

¶3

Sachin

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others			....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akhileshwar Kumar Shukla : G.A.	Pratap	Singh,	Santosh

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Dacodity Affected Area), Budaun in Special Session Case No. 668 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit and others), under Section 392 IPC and also allow the application dated 12.01.2026 filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. /348 BNSS to summon the opposite party no. 3 for re-examination.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the P.W. 2 was examined before the learned trial court but some questions were left unasked on the part of the accused/revisionist that was the reason an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned trial court to recall the witness for further cross-examination on the points mentioned in the application, since no such evidence has come on record. The learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the witness cannot be recalled for fulfilling the discrepancies. Further submitted that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are conferred on the learned trial court and also on the appellate court as well as revisional court to recall the witness for just decision of the case but the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction while passing the order in question. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied his argument on the case decided by

¶11

CRLR No. 2785 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar and other, (2023) 12 Supreme Court case 563 and request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the examination in chief of the P.W. 2 was recorded before the learned trial court and full opportunity of cross examination was given to the defence. The defence cross examined the witness in detail and the statement was completed on 11.09.2025, thereafter present application has been moved by the revisionist/accused to recall the witness for asking the questions on some points. Since the full opportunity was availed by the defence for crossexamination of the witness and it was done, therefore, the witness cannot be re-summoned for recross-examination only for the purposes of fulfilling the lacuna unless its re-examination or recall is not for the purposes of just decision of the case in the opinion of the court. The learned trial court has exercised its power lawfully and there is no any illegality in the order dated 2.2.2026 passed by learned trial court but this revision is devoid of merit.

¶15

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the contents of application, order passed by learned trial court dated 02.02.2026, the statement of the witness P.W. 2 dated 11.09.2025, it appears that the examination in chief of P.W. 2 was got recorded before the learned trial court and an opportunity of cross examination was given to the defence. The defence has asked the questions to the witness who has replied the questions and cross-examination was recorded in full before the learned trial court and it was completed. Later on, the application for recall of the same witness has been moved by the accused/revisionsit mentioning some points in the application to make further cross-examination on those points and therefore requested to recall the witness and afford him further opportunity of cross examination, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 02.02.2026.

¶16

Para 128 of the Harendra Rai case (supra) reads as under.

¶17

Section 311CrPC confers wide powers on any court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code to summon material witness or examine person present. Such person may not be a person summoned as a witness. Power to recall and

¶18

CRLR No. 2785 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

re-examine is also vested. The concept is that it should be essential for the just decision of the case. The said section is reproduced hereunder:

¶21

Power to summon material witness, or examine person present .-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 reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

¶22

From perusal of language used in Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court is empowered to recall the witness for examination or re-examination, if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. It is also to note that the witness cannot be recalled to fulfill the lacuna or discrepancies in the statement of the witness. From the statement of the P.W. 2 dated 11.09.2025, it appears that full opportunity of cross examination was given to the defence and it was availed and after cross examination the evidence of P.W. 2 was completed on 11.09.2025, thereafter on 12.01.2026 the present application has been moved to re-summon and re-cross examine the witness on some points. Since the full opportunity was given to the defence to make cross examination and it was availed, therefore, at this stage, there is no any ground to recall the witness for recross examination. The counsel for the defence asked the questions during the course of cross examination with his skill and ability, therefore, there appears no any ground to recall the witness for recross examination. The learned trial court has passed the order dated 12.02.2026 by exercising the jurisdiction in proper manner. There appears no any illegality in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

¶23

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed .

¶24

May 6, 2026 Anurag Singh

¶25

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Alias Kamal Singh Shyoran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivkumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivkumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karunashankar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaiveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another