Chetendra Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8471 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Chetendra Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45518
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1945 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Chetendra Pal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.1385 of 2003 (State v. Chetendra Pal), under Sections 304-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No.238 of 2000, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Brief facts, which reflect from the record are that the wife of the applicant was admitted in ICU of Sushila Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut where she died on 21.11.2000, thereafter, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and his other family members on the same day, which was registered as case crime no.238 of 2000, under section 304B IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted and viscera was preserved. After investigation chargesheet was submitted on 12.03.2021, the Court concerned had taken cognizance and the trial is going on. In the meanwhile, the accused has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the doctors, who have treated her during admission in the Hospital. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 21.12.2024, which is impugned in the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was admitted in the hospital as she was suffering from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrom. However, the viscera report reflects it is a case of poisoning by administering some pesticide. He further submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ought to have been allowed and doctors ought to have been summoned by the Court below. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on paragraph no.17 the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles, which the Court would have to borne in mind while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgement is quoted hereunder:-

"17. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts:-

17.1. Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?

17.2. The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.

17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.

17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

17.6. The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

17.7. The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

17.8. The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.

17.9. The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.

17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.

17.11. The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.

17.12. The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.

17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.

17.14. The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right."

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Court below and the evidence has been closed, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant only to delay the trial. He further placed reliance on the last paragraph of impugned order dated 21.12.2024, which is quoted hereunder:-

"????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????????, ????????? ????? ??????- ????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??, ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? 17-01-2001 ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ARDS (Adult respiratory disorder syndrome) ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??, ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??, ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ARDS (Adult respiratory disorder syndrome) ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????????-6 ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????? 28-03-2023 ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????/ ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??, ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??, ????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???????????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???"

6. Learned AGA also submit there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C, and this application is also liable to be dismissed.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Court below rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as it has been categorically stated that the entire evidence has come to an end and it is an attempt to delay the trial.

8. The instant application is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.4.2025

S.P.