Allahabad High Court
Lavkush vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 756 of 2021
Revisionist :- Lavkush
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Verma,Vishnu Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 15, Sitapur in Appeal No. 35 of 2021 (Lavkush Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 10.08.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Case No. 108 of 2018, by which the application filed by the revisionist to cross examine P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, has been rejected.
The revisionist had filed an application to cross examine P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 with the averments that he wants to cross examine them on certain issues and facts.
The said application was opposed by the prosecution and it was objected that the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had already been done on 30.10.1999, 25.08.2001 and 03.06.2002 respectively. After examination-in-chief of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, opportunity of cross examination was given to the accused-revisionist but the same was not availed by him. It is also relevant to mention here that the accused-revisionist had earlier also given an application on 31.05.2010 to summon P.W.2 and P.W.3 but the same was got rejected with the observation that the accused-revisionist had given the said application just to delay the proceeding, that too after two decades and there is no justification to allow the said application after such long lapse of time and the trial is at the final stage, however, he has not brought the said order on record.
Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the two judgments of the Apex Court reported in [2020(1) JIC 193 (SC) (Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) and [2021(1) JIC 264 (All) (Raghunath Vs. State of U.P. and another).
Per contra, Sri Anurag Verma, A.G.A. has rebutted the submission advanced by counsel for the revisionist and has placed reliance on Sub-Section (3) of Section 233 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which clearly indicates that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay the proceeding or for defeating the ends of justice. He has further submitted that in this case, the accused-revisionist has been confronted with under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the proceeding of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is over. He has further submitted that after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is no occasion to open the matter that too on the application of the accused-revisionist to fill up the lacuna. Sri Anurag Verma, A.G.A. has also placed reliance in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2019) 14 SCCs 328 (Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation). Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is quoted below :
"12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision."
In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is worth to mention that in the present matter, the application has been moved after 21 year which is not maintainable at the moment because trial is in the final stage and the accused have already been confronted with under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that after 21 years, again the witnesses should be re-summoned.
Considering the submission advanced by the counsel for both the parties, perused the aforesaid two judgments Manju Devi (supra) and Raghunath (supra) which are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the matter, I do not find any merit in the case, both the orders dated 21.10.2021 and 10.08.2021 passed by the court below needs no interference.
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
SA
