Satish Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 426 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16116 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Satish Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 17.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 186 of 2015 (State Vs. Satish Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the witness who has been allowed by the trial court to be called up again and depose, should not have been allowed to depose again as PW-1 Smt. Saroj Singh has already been examined in the court and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

It is apparent from the record that it was brought to the notice of the Court by a written application which was moved by PW-1 that one of her sons had already been murdered by the accused persons while another son who is still alive, was put under great threat of life and it was under the pain of his death that she was compelled to give a favourable statement in the court in spite of herself. An application in this regard had already been moved on her behalf in the form of an N.C.R. but the pressure on behalf of the accused kept mounting on her. Later on, the lone surviving son was also put under wrongful confinement and she was asked to depose in favour of the accused in the court otherwise the son was also to be eliminated. It was for these reasons that she had to give the earlier statement. Later on, PW-1 mobilized the courage to move the application and prayed that she should be again examined. It was for these reasons that the trial court decided to re-examine her. It was observed by the trial court that the matter related to gravest class of offences being a case of murder and it was better to examine the witness and then appreciate the evidence in the totality of the facts.

This Court does not find any serious flaw in the Courts approach. What shall be the evidentiary value of her statement shall depend upon the totality of the circumstances of the case and it lies within the realm of the trial court to analyse, weigh and make a judicial estimation of its evidentiary worth. Any finding of this Court in this regard may cause prejudice to either side. Suffice to say that the reasoning for allowing the application and recalling the witness does not appear to be perverse and this Court does not see any abuse of Court's process that may be likely to result in failure of justice in allowing such application as has been done by the court below.

The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.5.2018

Rmk.