The court emphasized the need for essential evidence to arrive at a just decision and discussed the exercise of discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in light of relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case is called out.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, Sri Mohsin Iqbal, Advocate as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the court below (learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Faizabad) passed in Sessions Trial No.84/2013 by which the application of the accused applicants purported to be under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The prayer made in the present application runs as under :-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Faizabad, S.T. No.84 of 2013 (arising out of Crime No.3895 of 2012) U/S- 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 302, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad State Vs. Mohd. Siddique and others which is contained as Annexure No.4 to the petition, allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and direct the learned Trial Court to firstly summon the doctor as well as injury report, Bed Head Ticket etc. of injured Suleman-PW-2 from K.G.M.U., Lucknow and thereafter conclude the trial, in the interest of justice."

4. It would be pertinent to reproduce para-2 of this application which is as under :-

"That the petitioners are involved in case crime No.3895 of 2012, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 336, 504, 506 IPC of P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Faizabad, which was registered on 8.12.2012 at 4:00 p.m. relating to the incident dated 8.12.2012 at 2.15 p.m. on the information of Mohd. Usman."

5. The certified copy of the impugned order is made Annexure No.4 to the present application. From perusal of the order dated 06.1.2021, it is obvious that the applicants have moved an application bearing No.234(Kha) in Sessions Trial No. 84/2013 (State Vs. Mohd. Saddam and Ors.) pending before that Court, to the effect that since the injured of the occurrence involved in the aforesaid Sessions Trial namely Suleman (PW-2) stated in his examination before the court that he was admitted in District Hospital, Faizabad from where he was referred to Lucknow by doctor, therefore, the said doctor alongwith bed head ticket and reference letter be called in the court for examination alongwith doctors at Trauma Center, Lucknow who made medical examination and treatment of the said injured, exercising the power vested in the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has also mention of the fact that the applicants have not made clear, whether the proposed witnesses and evidences sought to be summoned in the court would be prosecution witnesses or the witnesses of the defence.

6. Further, learned court below observed that the said applications are moved in the mid of arguments impressing on the fact that First Information Report is anti-timed with a view to improve their case, though they themselves have led the evidence of their four witnesses in defence also. Learned court below further observed that after the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-applicants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were afforded opportunity to lead evidence and they virtually availed the said opportunities in the trial, thereafter the evidence in defence was led by them sufficiently. Therefore, the date was fixed for final argument long back in the year 2016.

7. Learned court below further observed that the applicants have no explanation as to why the proposed evidence and witnesses sought to be summoned could not be produced by them in the course when they were availing the opportunity to adduce evidence in defence before the Court. Further, learned trial court observed that though the application moved by the accused applicants under Section 311 Cr.P.C. have no justification and force to invoke the discretion of the Court, then also, this would be open for th