Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Singh And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29430 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Bhanu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Udai Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.T. No.77 of 2011 (State vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1338 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sarailakhansi, District Mau, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mau.
In the present application prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 23.7.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau rejecting the application moved on behalf of the applicants under Section 311/233 Cr.P.C. It is stated that in their statements PWs- 1 and 2 have stated that when the incident took place they were at the shop of one Kailash and then they rushed the place of incident and Kailash being a prime and independent witness can divulge the truth, therefore, he may be called as a defence witness or the court may exercise its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and examine the said witness. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2008) 11 SCC 108 that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is exercised in a widest possible manner and huge discretion vests upon the court and that for the just decision of the case, he may either recall the witnesses who have already been examined or examine any person.
I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicants. However, I may record that in the present case the factual position is totally different, inasmuch as, the incident of murder took place in the year 2010. Learned counsel for the applicants could not point out the date on which the statements of applicants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it is not disputed that they were not afforded any opportunity to lead defence evidence. However, it is stated that one opportunity may be given to the applicants and the independent witness, Kailash may be summoned.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application on the ground that at the very belated stage this application for examining Kailash has been moved by the defence, especially, when the arguments have been concluded and 7th of August, 2019 is fixed for delivery of judgment.
In my opinion, the court below has not committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the application moved on behalf of the applicants under Section 311/233 Cr.P.C.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is bereft of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Vikas
