Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manish Mathur, J.
Sanket Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 4826 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 233 - Right to fair trial - Accused-applicant sought summoning of witnesses and documents to substantiate alibi - Trial court's rejection of applications was found erroneous as it did not adhere to grounds specified in Section 233(3) - The court emphasized the necessity of allowing such applications to ensure a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 19, 24, 54)
(B) Fair Trial - The court reiterated that the right to a fair trial is fundamental and must be upheld, particularly in serious charges such as murder, where the accused must be given ample opportunity to present their defense. (Paras 28, 53)
Facts of the case:
The accused-applicant filed applications under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for summoning witnesses and documents to prove an alibi related to an incident on 19.12.2016, which were partially rejected by the trial court.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's rejection of the applications was quashed, and the court directed that expenses for summoning witnesses be borne by the State.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court correctly applied the provisions of Section 233 Cr.P.C. in rejecting the applications for summoning witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court must allow applications under Section 233 Cr.P.C. unless there are valid grounds for rejection as specified in the statute, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
Result: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partially allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Mathur, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for accused-applicant, Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.1 State and Mr. Imran Ullah, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for modification of order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.401 of 2017, State versus Sanket & Ors., arising out of Case Crime No.1263 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506, 120B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh by directing summoning of witnesses no.1, 2 and 8 at the expense of State Government and not at the expense of accused-applicant. Further prayer for quashing part of the order dated 17.01.2024 passed in the aforesaid case so far as it rejects summoning of witnesses 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 has been sought. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the said order dated 17.01.2024 whereby application no.92 Kha for summoning of record of affidavit verification photo from the record keeper of Photo Identification Centre of this Court has been made.
3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant submits that earlier the accused-applicant had filed an application dated 03.07.2017 seeking verification of the Photo Identification Centre of this Court as well as records of the Shri Ram Hotel Allahabad. The said application was rejected by means of order dated 15.07.2017 which was challenged before this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.26575 of 2017 in which initially interim order dated 05.09.2017 was passed but the application thereafter was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2019 leaving it open to the applicant to lead such evidence at the appropriate stage with the observation that such a plea is not required to be considered since at that time the stage was only for framing of charge.
4. It is submitted that subsequently the applicant preferred another application dated 29.05.2019 before the trial court seeking a direction to the Photo Identification Centre of this Court, specifically the record in charge to keep the said record in safe custody till disposal of the case. The said application was allowed by means of order dated 19.10.2019. It is submitted that however despite allowing the said application, no information was sent by the office of trial court to the Photo Identification Centre of this Court leading to filing of another application by the applicant through jailor. The said application was rejected by means of order dated 11.08.2021 which was challenged by the applicant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.23012 of 2021, which is said to be still pending consideration.
5. It has also been submitted that the Photo Verification Centre of the High Court functions under the Bar Association which is a Private Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore the documents issued by such a Centre would not come within purview of public document as envisaged under Section 74 of the Evidence Act due to which its corroboration is required.
6. It is submitted that during pendency of the earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant filed the present applications dated 20.12.2023 with Application No.92Kha/1 pertaining to summoning of the In charge of the Photo Identification Centre alongwith records of 19.12.2016 and the Second Application Bearing No.91Kha/1 indicating a list of eight different witnesses sought to be summoned under Section 233 Cr.P.C.
7. It is these two applications which have been rejected by means of impugned order dated 17.01.2024.
8. Learned counsel submits that the incident as per first information report is said to have taken place on 19.12.2016 in which first information report was lodged and charge-sheet was also submitted on 19.03.2017 whereupon cognizance was taken on 30.03.2017 with charges being framed on 25.09.2019. It is submitted that due to interim pr
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing applications under Section 233 Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair trial, particularly in serious criminal cases.
The accused has an absolute right to summon witnesses in defense, and the trial court must allow such requests unless there are cogent reasons to deny them.
The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons, ensuring a fair trial and the just decision of the case.
A reading of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that any Court can summon any person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage.
Appellate courts may allow prosecution additional evidence like post-trial matriculation certificate to corroborate victim age proofs, curing irregularity without prejudice, if essential for just dec....
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.
Only the prosecution can submit additional documents in a sessions trial; witnesses cannot independently introduce evidence, ensuring trial integrity.
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
