Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Rupesh Kumar Srivastava Alias Nirmal Srivastava - Applicant
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. - 3163 of 2024
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of order - Section 307 I.P.C. - [Section 311 Cr.P.C., Section 233 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 311 and Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code and their implications in summoning and recalling witnesses. The court emphasized the plenary power of the court under Section 311 to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witness for a just decision of the case. It also highlighted the difference between the powers of the court under Section 311 and the right of the accused under Section 233 to produce evidence in its defense. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to summon the witness for cross-examination, emphasizing the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to adduce evidence in support of the defense.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to quash the order passed by the trial court, which had refused permission for cross-examination of a witness in a case arising under Section 307 I.P.C. The applicant contended that the trial court had illegally closed the opportunity for cross-examination, while the State argued that the applicant was attempting to delay the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had failed to apply the law correctly and had ignored the difference in scope and implications of the provisions of Section 311 and Section 233(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to afford the applicant a last opportunity for cross-examination of the witness.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court had erred in refusing permission for cross-examination of a witness in a case under Section 307 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the plenary power of the court under Section 311 to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witness for a just decision of the case. It also highlighted the difference between the powers of the court under Section 311 and the right of the accused under Section 233 to produce evidence in its defense. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of these provisions and the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to adduce evidence in support of the defense.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to afford the applicant a last opportunity for cross-examination of the witness, emphasizing the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to adduce evidence in support of the defense.
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant, namely, Rupesh Kumar Srivastava Alias Nirmal Srivastava with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.53/2016, arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2012, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda.
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that final report was submitted in the case of applicant and one co-accused by the Investigating Officer on 30.07.2013 on the ground that the complicity of the applicant and co-accused was not found in the alleged crime. Thereafter, the complainant had filed an application on 14.09.2014 before the Superintendent of Police, Gonda for further investigation of the matter, wherein further investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 22.01.2016 under Section 307 I.P.C. in a mechanical manner without considering the evidence.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that cognizance upon the charge sheet was taken and the trial of the case was started wherein the complainant was summoned for examination as witness. On 01.08.2017, the complainant Sushil Shukla/P.W.-1 was examined in chief, however, the cross-examination of this witness could not be completed due to paucity of time, therefore, the matter was postponed for cross-examination.
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that on 09.08.2017, the applicant has filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for providing certain documents which had been collected during investigation, however, the same was refused and application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.02.2020. Thereafter, the P.W.-1 was summoned for cross-examination on 10.03.2021, 23.03.2021, 01.11.2021, 24.11.2021 and 23.12.2021 but due to pandemic of COVID-19, the cross-examination could not be concluded. On 05.04.2022, the matter was fixed for cross-examination but an application for adjournment was filed by the applicant, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.04.2022 closing the opportunity of cross examination.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that on 18.08.2022, the applicant has filed an application for grant of permission for cross examination of P.W.-1/Sushil Shukla, however, the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 06.09.2022 and on 15.02.2024, the learned trial court has passed an order whereby the P.W.-1 Sushil Shukla was summoned for 27.02.2024 for cross-examination in respect of the co-accused Triyugi Narain Gupta. In the meantime, the applicant has moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5258 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court in the month of May, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application for grant of permission for cross-examination of P.W.-1 was rejected, however, during the pendency of the aforesaid case before this Hon'ble Court, the learned trial court had passed the order dated 15.02.2024 whereby the P.W.-1 Sushil Shukla was summoned for cross-examination in respect of co-accused Triyugi Narain Gupta, therefore, the applicant has withdrawn the aforesaid case i.e. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5258 of 2023 on 01.03.2024.
7. Learned senior counsel further submits that the applicant had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court on 06.03.2024 for grant of permission for cross-examination of P.W.-1 Sushil Shukla, which has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 22.03.2024 on the ground that the opportunity of cross-ex
The central legal point established in the judgment is the plenary power of the court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witnes....
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to allow re-examination of a witness for the purpose of conducting cross-examination o....
Point of Law : To meet the ends of justice, the door cannot be shut against the accused persons without giving opportunity to cross-examine the witness only after he came to know that in another sess....
Fair trial principles mandate that the opportunity for cross-examination of significant witnesses cannot be arbitrarily denied, aligning with the objectives of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
The aim of every Court has to discover the truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of many such provisions of the Code which strengthen the arms of a Court in its effort to ferret out the truth by proc....
The court established that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. allows for re-examination of witnesses when essential for a just decision, emphasizing the importance of thorough cross-examination.
The Court emphasized the broad powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to aid in the discovery of truth and ensure a just decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
