Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 195 (ALL)

Govind @ Ram Govind v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

RAJEEV MISRA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajeev Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Diwarkar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Govind @ Ram Govind, who is charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect of impugned order dated 05.04.2023 along with the order dated 11.09.2024 on the application given by the applicant on dated 28.02.2023 along with application dated 19.04.2023 given by the applicant to the concerned court below and the order passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Pocso Act Fatehpur in Special Trial No. 05 of 2018 (State vs. Govind @ Ram Govind) in Case Crime No. 432 of 2017 Under Section 376, 354-A, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Pocso Act and 3(2)v SC/ST Act Police Station Ashothar District Fatehpur by which learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Pocso Act Fatehpur had rejected the application of the applicant in arbitrarily manner without seeing the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to summon the record of the. Juvenile Justice Board Fatehpur in Case No. 3402 of 2006 (State vs. Govind Singh) Under Section 307, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Ashothar District Fatehpur had been abated by Juvenile Justice Board Fatehpur on dated 21.04.2013. And/or pass such and further order may deem fit under fact and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Record shows that during pendency of aforesaid sessions trial, applicant who is a charge sheeted accused has filed this application dated 28.2.2023 with the prayer that the record of Case No. 3402 of 2006 be summoned to ascertain the deth of Ram Govind brother of deceased as applicant has wrongly been described as Govind whereas Ram Govind (brother of the applicant) died long ago. Aforesaid application was opposed by prosecution. Ultimately, Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of material on record by means of impugned order dated 5.4.2023 rejected the aforesaid application. 5. Aforesaid application was opposed by prosecution. Ultimately, Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of material on record by means of impugned order dated 5.4.2023 rejected the aforesaid application. 5. Perusal of order dated 5.4.2023, will go to show that Court below has rejected application field by accused/applicant primarily on the ground that at the stage of prosecution evidence, prosecutrix was cross-examined on behalf of accused. No such statement could be culled out from her examination-in-Chief so as to dislodged the identity of the accused. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the order impugned is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. Once the applicant filed the application dated 28.2.2023, only to summon the record of criminal case, which was abetted by Juvenile Justice Board, Court below ought to have allowed the same. In case the aforesaid record was summoned, no prejudice was going to be caused to the prosecution. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that that Court below while considering the aforesaid application filed by accused has recorded clear and categorical findings. All the prosecution witnesses of fact have already been cross examined on behalf of accused. No such statement could be culled out in their examination in chief so as to dislodge the identity of the accused. As such, aforementioned application was engineered by the accused only to delay the conclusion of trial. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 10. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is accordingly dismissed.