Allahabad High Court
Shameem Alias Bugul vs State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3637 of 2022
Applicant :- Shameem Alias Bugul
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy.Prin.Secy.Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Singh,Kunwar Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. Present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 26-05-2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate,Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Juvenile Case No. 50 of 201,(State Vs. Shameem @ Bugul), arising out of Case Crime N. 360 of 2017, under sections 376 D,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, district-Sultanpur.
3. The petitioner-accused moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Investigating Officer, Ranjeet Singh for examination in the court. It is said in the application that Ranjeet Singh,Investigating Officer had prepared Parcha Nos. 8 & 9. The earlier Investigating Officer, Bhupendra Singh was examined in the court and his detailed cross examination took place and his evidence was closed on 12-05-2022. On 24-05-2022, the date was fixed for recording statement of the accused under section 313 C.P.C. At this stage, the application under section 311 C.P.C. came to be filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner for summoning the Investigating Officer, Ranjeet Singh for recording his evidence in the court.
4. In response to the said application, the prosecution filed its objections and specifically stated that Parcha Nos. 8 & 9 were not prepared by Ranjeet Singh, Investigating Officer, but, the same were prepared by Bhupendra Singh,Investigating Officer and Bhupendra Singh, Investigating Officer was cross examined in detail and his evidence was closed on 12-05-2022. In all together, five witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer, Bhupendra Singh,who was P.W.-5. No site map was prepared and on this point, the Investigating Officer was also cross-examined. The Investigating Officer, Ranjeet Singh had prepared Parcha Nos. 10 to 18 and he also did not visit the place of incident nor prepared any site map etc. The trial court was of the view that the Investigating Officer, Bhupendra Singh, was cross-examined in detail and all questions in respect of the chargesheet were put to him, and there was nothing which could be proved by the Investigating Officer, Ranjeet Singh. Therefore, the application came to be rejected.
5. The accused-petitioner had earlier filed a similar application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning P.W. 1 to P.W.-3 for their re-examination. However, that application came to be rejected vide order dated 04-05-2022.
6. This court does not find that the Juvenile Justice Board has committed any error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the accused-petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C.
7. The power under section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power and it is for the trial court to summon,re-summon any witness or person for giving evidence or re-examination if it is so required for just and proper decision in the case. The trial court has considered the fact that all the relevant questions in respect of the chargesheet have been put to the Investigating Officer, Bhupendra Singh, and there was nothing, which could have been proved by Ranjeet Singh, Investigating Officer.
8. This court finds that the conduct of the accused would show that he is not interested in early conclusion of the trial, but, he wants to drag on the trial.
9. Considering this aspect of the matter, this court does not find any error in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of merits, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.6.2022/AKS
