Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh @ Vikki vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202878
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7261 of 2023
Appellant :- Kamlesh @ Vikki
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. As per the office report dated 30.8.2023, notice has been served on the informant personally.
3. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
4. The present criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for quashing the impugned order dated 6.6.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj in Special Session Trial No.227 of 2022 (State vs. Kamlesh @ Vikki), arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2022, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Maharajganj.
5. In the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, whereby the application moved by the appellant for recalling the witness PW-6 has been dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that it goes against the fundamental rights if the appellant contesting against the case could not cross-examine the witness at all. The witness PW-6 has been cross-examined partly, but it could not be completed due to illness of the counsel for the appellant. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that one last opportunity may be granted to cross-examine the witness PW-6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present appeal on the ground that the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him, but has not disputed the fact that the witness PW-6 has only been examined partly.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao (supra), I find it a fit case to grant opportunity to the appellant for cross-examining the witness PW-6.
9. The present criminal appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 6.6.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj is, hereby, set-aside.
10. It is directed that the witness PW-6 shall be recalled by the trial court and an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness be afforded to the appellant. The trial court shall take endeavour to conclude the cross-examination of the witness expeditiously and without unnecessary delay and the appellant shall not seek any adjournment regarding cross-examination of the said witness PW-6.
Order Date :- 19.10.2023
Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
