Guddu @ Jagdish and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 425 of 2026

¶3

Guddu @ Jagdish And 4 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vishwa Nath Singh, Shiv Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

The instant criminal revision under Section 438/442 BNSS (Corresponding to Section 397/401 CrPC) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 02, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 344/2023 (State vs. Guddu & Others), whereby the application (Ga-46) filed by the revisionists under Section 348 BNSS (Section 311 CrPC) for recalling PW-1 and PW-6 was rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that due to the slackness and inadvertence of the earlier counsel for the revisionists, no effective crossexamination of PW1, informant and PW6, Dr. Kunwar Servendra Singh, who has prepared the medico-legal injury report could be carried out. The revisionists engaged new counsel, Shri Narendra Kumar Verma Advocate and Ajay Chauhan Advocate , who had inspected the record and found that no cross-examination of PW-1 was conducted in regard to the place of occurrence, inconsistencies in his FIR version and in sworn testimony before the court. No question was asked from the P.W.-6 regarding the duration of injury mentioned in the injury report prepared by him. There are four injured persons, out of whom two are women and two are male persons who were alcoholic and the fact that they received

¶12

CRLR No. 425 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

injuries in the alleged incident is doubtful.

¶15

He next submitted that the revisionist has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of witnesses as stated in the application, and for that purpose, a prayer was made to recall PW1 and PW6 for further cross-examination which has been wrongly rejected by the trial court, on account of which the revisionists have been deprived of an opportunity of further cross-examination of the said witnesses in regard to the material facts of the case.

¶16

Per Contra , learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer made in the present revision and submits that as the witnesses are admittedly examined and cross-examined, they cannot be recalled due to the fact that the revisionists have engaged new counsel and found certain omissions in the cross-examination carried out by the previous counsel.

¶17

For the sake of convenience Section 311 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-

¶18

" 311. 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 reexamine 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."

¶19

Under the aforesaid statutory provision, it is quite clear that the court can summon and examine, or recall or re-examine, any person if his evidence appears it to be essential for a just decision of the case. It is no right of any of the parties, either prosecution or the accused to pray for the recall of a witness who had already been examined and cross-examined during trial.

¶20

It is trite law that Section 311 cannot be used to fill up the lacuna of the case of the parties, but recall of a witnesses can be done to meet the ends of justice. The power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised with caution and circumspection, and only for strong and valid reasons.

¶21

CRLR No. 425 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs. Prahalad Jat , (2017) 9 SCC 340 held that recall of a witness already examined is not a matter of course and discretion given to court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Reasons for exercising said power should be spelt out in the order. Delay in filing application for recalling a witness is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application.

¶24

The grounds taken in the application for recall of the witnesses filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court do not appear sufficient for the reason that person engaged a new counsel who found certain omissions in cross-examination conducted by earlier counsel. The said commissions by way of prayer to recall some of the witness who have already been examined and cross-examined is not a sufficient ground to recall them on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However, the legal position that at any stage of trial and before the judgment, the discretion of the trial court to summon or recall any witnesses remains intact. If the court in exercise of its judicial discretion finds it is expedient, it may summon or recall the witnesses for good grounds if their evidence appears to it to be essential for just decision of the case.

¶25

With the above observations, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned trial court whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists has been dismissed.

¶26

Criminal revision is dismissed accordingly.

¶27

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶28

April 16, 2026 dk/

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu @ Jagdish and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Jagdish and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Mohammad Zeeshan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Subhash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Afjaal @ Bade Lalla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Keshna @ Keshana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others