Allahabad High Court
Navaj Shareef Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95881
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5667 of 2024
Revisionist :- Navaj Shareef Khan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Maurya,Satish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Madhvendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A.for the State are present.
2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred to set aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Ballia in Session Trial No. 228 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2018, under Sections 376, 406, 420 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Khejuri, District Ramgarh, whereby application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly admits that there is no proposed questions in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C which have not been asked from the prosecution witnesses, victim as well as other witnesses. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been filed on 04.09.2024 after three years of the recording of the evidence. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were cross examined on 06.01.2021 and 18.08.2021 respectively.
4. In Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 16 SCC 628, the Supreme Court considered the issue of fair trial observing in Para 10, which is as under:-
"10. This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) decided on 30.9.2013, after referring to its earlier judgments in Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing:
Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law' and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.
Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
xx xx xx xx
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights."
5. In view of the the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the position of law on this point, wihthout going through the merit of the case I am of the considered view that the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present criminal revision deserves no merit, and the same is, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.6.2025
PS
