Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P & Anr.

Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District Firozabad in Session Trial No. 537 of 2023 (State vs. Abhay Pandit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 775 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 328, 352, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67-A of IT Act, P.S. Tundla, District Firizabad, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the examination of PW-1 was recorded on 13.07.2023 and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed after 11 months of the examination. There is no explanation for delay. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat, 2017 SCC (Cri) 729. Brief facts of the case are that PW-1/victim has been examined as PW-1 on 13.07.2023, wherein she has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief but she has not supported the prosecution case in her cross-examination. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not cross-examined the PW-1/victim after not supporting the prosecution case. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., MANU/SC/1344/2006, the Supreme Court observed in para no. 25 as under: "25. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative fact is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. " Learned counsel for the applicant fairly admits that the prosecution has right to cross-examine the witness (victim) after not supporting the prosecution case in her cross-examination. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, this application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2024 MAA/-