Deep Narayan Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14279 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2126 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Deep Narayan Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Aditya Mishra,Janardan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adil Aziz Khan,Dr. Pooja Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Dr. Pooja Singh, Advocate and learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents, and gone through the record.

2. By way of this Application under Section 482 CrPC, the accused-applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-Ist/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) Gonda in Sessions Trial No.374 of 1997, rejecting his applicant under Section 311 CrPC to recall witness, Narendra Singh, alleged eye-witness.

3. There were as many as 11 witnesses of fact; earlier the said witness was not appearing despite issuance of summon and non-bailable warrant by the learned trial Court. In view thereof, the evidence of the said witness was closed and statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 CrPC was moved on behalf of complainant to recall the witness (PW-1), thus, PW-1 appeared in the Court for recording his statement.

4. This Court finds little strange that after 313 CrPC statement was recorded and judgment was reserved the witness, who was not turning up despite process having been taken under Section 82-83 CrPC, on an application moved by the prosecution, he was summoned and appeared on 01.09.2021. On the said date, his examination-in-chief was recorded and he was also cross-examined.

5 . Co-accused, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh had filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the said witness, however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2022.

6. Considering the fact that already application of the co-accused, who is alleged to have played similar role in commission of the offence, has been rejected, this Court does not find it appropriate to allow the application of this accused. The trial Court has recorded that there was sufficient opportunity available to the accused-applicant to cross-examine the witness and, in fact, the said witness was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused. This Court is of the view that the power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be exercised on the ground that some questions could not be put to the witness by an inadvertent mistake by the counsel.

7. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order. Therefore, the application is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.10.2022

MVS/-