Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3745 (ALL)

Durga Prasad v. State of U. P.

2015-12-01

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 6.10.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2014, under Sections 302/34 IPC, P.S. Rajghat, District Gorakhpur whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-examine P.W-2 Harishankar, has been rejected by the court below. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that some important questions could not be asked and therefore it was the duty of the court to allow the application and to permit the re-examination of P.W.2. 3. Perusal of record discloses that the applicant had earlier challenged the order dated 9.4.2015 whereby the application for summoning the P.W.-2 has been rejected by means of Criminal Revision No. 1695 of 2015 before this court wherein this court had provided an opportunity to the applicants to cross examine the P.W-2 vide order dated 16.7.2015. Pursuant to the said order the witness was summoned by the court below and was cross examined by a senior advocate on behalf of applicants. 4. To the contrary, learned A.G.A. submitted submitted that the accused persons were given more than reasonable opportunities to cross-examine the witness, therefore, the accused persons had all the opportunity to cross-examine the witness on all the points. Accordingly, this application has rightly been rejected by the trial court on valid reasons. 5. I have gone through the impugned order and found that the conclusions noted by the trial Court, while deciding the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., are appropriate and just. I do not find any bonafides in the application of the applicants, while seeking the permission of the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of P.W.-2 only on the ground that some important questions have been left to be asked by his counsel. Learned Sessions Judge has specifically mentioned that this cannot be a ground for recalling the witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. In any case, trial court has mentioned in its order that the question sought to be asked from witnesses have already been asked in various forms by the counsel for the accused. 6. Learned Sessions Judge has specifically mentioned that this cannot be a ground for recalling the witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. In any case, trial court has mentioned in its order that the question sought to be asked from witnesses have already been asked in various forms by the counsel for the accused. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that there is no illegality in the rejection of application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court is only to ensure that accused has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to defend himself. It is also the duty of the court to ensure that the right to cross-examination should not be permitted to be used as a weapon to delay the disposal of the trial at the mercy of the accused persons. 7. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, and is hereby dismissed.