Allahabad High Court
Lakhan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80285
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2114 of 2024
Revisionist :- Lakhan Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Yadav,Sudhakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material brought on record.
2. Instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), IInd, Jaunpur in O.T. No. 165/2008 (State Vs. Lakhan Yadav and Ors.) U/s 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), IInd, Jaunpur has rejected application as filed by the revisionist U/s 233 Cr.P.C. on 02.04.2024.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that on 28.03.2024, the evidence of prosecution was completed and statement of the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to have been recorded by the Trial Court and applicant has clearly stated that he wants to produce in his defence to DR. C.B.N. Tripathi, who had medically examined the revisionist on 29.02.2008. It is further submitted that learned trial court has rejected legitimate prayer of the revisionist giving finding that the accused wants to delay the proceedings and prayer for summoning Dr. C.B.N. Tripathi as defence witness was illegally declined. It is also contended that the revisionist was brutally beaten on 29.02.2008 and he was medically examined by the police itself, hence, the revisionist want to bring this fact on record by way of medical evidence, hence, the order passed by the learned trial court is perverse and is liable to be set-aside.
4. Learned AGA for the State submitted that the order passed by the trial court is passed with proper application of mind, hence, instant revision deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material brought on record. It transpires that the revisionist was arrested on 27.02.2008 and he was medically examined by Doctor on 29.02.2008 at about 12:30 P.M.. Two injuries were found on the body which is part of the record. It is undue and unfair not to provide the accused an opportunity to adduce defence under Section 233 Cr.P.C. It also transpires from statement of revisionist recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that immediately after his statement he moved an application to summon Dr. C.B.N. Tripathi. There is no delay on the part of the revisionist, there is no lingering of delay tactics on the part of the revisionist, hence, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to provide an opportunity of hearing to prove their defence (prosecution as well as accused).
6. In view thereof, the revision is finally allowed with a direction to the trial court to provide one single opportunity to adduce the defence to revisionist. Revisionist is directed to appear on the next date fixed to adduce his evidence on his own expenditure.
7. It is made clear that if the revisionist lingers on and uses delay tactics, then the trial court shall be at liberty to close the opportunity of adducing defence witness.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Karan
