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.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Ms. Swati Sharma and Mr. Aman Diwedi, Advocates have put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama for opposite party no.2/ informant and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ informant/ complainant, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application is directed against the impugned order dated 23.06.2025, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, EC Act, Pratapgarh in S.T. No. 115 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh. Further prayer is made that one opportunity be provided to the petitioner for cross- examination of witnesses, namely, PW-2 - Ramesh Pal and PW-3 - Dr. Anuj Kumar Chaurasiya, for fair and proper disposal of the case."

4. Briefly stated prosecution story is that the learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no.2/ informant had got lodged the FIR against the petitioner on 24.09.2020, bearing Case Crime No. 257 of 2020, under Section 307 of IPC at Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh, while instituting an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with respect to an alleged incident, which said to have happened on 27.02.2020 at 7:30 P.M. The injured was medically examined on 27.02.2020, and thereafter, the X-ray was also got done but no fracture was seen. The applicant was arrested by the police on 29.08.2023 and he was released on bail on 12.12.2024. The PW-2 was examined on 20.06.2024 and the PW-3/ Doctor, who examined the injured, deposed his testimony on 21.10.2024. During the aforesaid period, the applicant was in jail and the proper opportunity of cross- examination has not been afforded by the learned trial court.

5. Contention put forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the finding, which is recorded for rejection of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in the impugned order, is evident that when the applicant was produced from the jail before the Court, during the argument by his counsel, he started shouting and asked his counsel not to argue in the matter and on such instructions, the learned counsel for the applicant stated before the court that he would not further conduct this case, whereas the another finding has also been recorded in the same breath that there was another advocate for the applicant but it is apparent that because of the pairokar did not call him, the opportunity of cross-examining the PW-2 and the PW-3 have been closed. He added that both the reasons assigned by the learned trial court while rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is baseless and perverse. He submits that the PW-2 and the PW-3 are the important witnesses and closing the opportunity of cross- examination, in such a cursory manner, will cause acute prejudice to the applicant-accused.

6. In support of contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment reported in [2019] 6 SCC 203 , Manju Devi versus State of Rajasthan and has referred the relevant paragraphs, which read as under:-

"14. In Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203, a two-Judge bench of this Court noted that an application under Section 311 could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an inordinate amount of time (ten years there). Rather, it noted that "the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive