Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 August, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19643 of 2017
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Pradeep Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Lok Nath Shukla
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant seeking the quashing of order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Ballia in Session Trial No.167 of 2014 (State vs. Ajay Shukla and 3 others) arising out of Case Crime No.341 of 2012, u/s 120-B and 302 I.P.C., P.S.-Sikandarpur, District-Ballia, whereby the application moved on behalf of wife of the deceased to get herself examined as witness has been allowed.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
Submission of counsel for applicant is that the wife of the deceased who seeks to be produced in the court and wants to get herself examined as witness should not have been allowed to be examined by the trial court as it is a very belated introduction and is clearly an attempt of improvisation on prosecution story and the earlier omissions in the evidence of other witnesses about this lady being the witness of the case is sufficient to discredit her testimonial worth and value, and so therefore, there was no justification for the trial court to have allowed her application and thus the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have rebutted the submissions made by the applicant's counsel. It has been submitted that all the submissions made by the counsel for applicant relate to the evidentiary value of the witness but that does not go to oust the jurisdiction of the court to examine her. She may be relied upon by the court or she may not be relied upon by it, but this is a matter to be appreciated during the trial. It will not be a good ground to refuse the examination of a witness just because he or she appears to be not a very credible witness. The credibility has to be decided on the basis of the quality of evidence which may be produced during the course of trial and it will be rather premature to assess the evidentiary worth of the witness at a penultimate stage. Submission of counsel is that even those persons, who may not be mentioned in the charge sheet as witnesses, may be examined by the court. In fact any person, whose evidence in the considered opinion of the Court, is found to be relevant may be examined by the court in its discretion and simply because the name of witness was lately introduced is not a conclusive ground to refuse his or her examination and therefore, impugned order should not be castigated on that ground.
Perused the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar.
This Court finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of opposite party. Whatever submissions have been raised by applicant's counsel all relate to the evidentiary value of the wife of the deceased. The admissibility of evidence and the credibility of evidence are two different propositions of law. If a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible, it must not be allowed to come on record. But if a witness is deposing about a relevant fact, his or her evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible, if what he or she claims to have known and seen is within the permissible limits of admissibility of evidence as provided in the Indian Evidence Act. In this matter the wife of the deceased claims herself to be an eyewitness. From the submission of counsel for applicant, that this is a belated claim made by the wife of the deceased and that had she actually been an eyewitness this fact ought to have come up earlier, this becomes so very clear that learned counsel is assailing the reliability or the credibility or the evidentiary value of this witness. This will be definitely premature to assess the same even before she is allowed to be examined. If the wife of the deceased claiming to be an eyewitness of the incident wants to narrate an account, moves an application proposing herself to be examined in the court and if the court below has allowed such an application, the order cannot be said to be either perverse or something which is illegal. It goes without saying that that if the trial court has allowed the examination of this witness, it does not necessarily go to mean or conclude that this witness is definitely going to be relied upon by the trial court or that her testimony shall definitely be acted upon by the trial court. It will all depend upon the nature of evidence produced by her and this Court does not propose to make any such comments which may impair the independent findings of the trial court in this regard. Suffice it to say that even though the witness who was not named earlier in the charge sheet, her examination in the court shall not be illegal and the court has not acted without jurisdiction in allowing her examination. The Courts have immense power even under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. where they may examine anybody whose evidence is found, in the estimate of the court, to have some bearing or which may appear to the court to have some relevance on the point in issue or which may be essential to unfold the prosecution story or which may be essential to arrive at a just decision in the case. For all these reasons and in such circumstances therefore this Court does not see any good ground to interfere in the impugned order.
The application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2018
M. Kumar
