State v. Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, advocate who has filed vakalatnama today which is taken on record.

2. By means of the present application, the accused/applicant has sought the following main relief(s): "For the facts, reasons and circumstances, stated in the accompanying affidavit, filed in support of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure No.-1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli on the application no.- 930Kha preferred by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure No.-2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli on the application no.- 932Kha preferred by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, in the interest of justice. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli to abstain from or not pass final Judgment in the case, arising out of Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, till the final disposal of the present applicant in the interest of justice."

3. Vide order dated 20.01.2025, the application preferred by the defence for summoning the record under Section 91 CrPC has been rejected. The order dated 05.06.2024, impugned herein, is extracted hereinunder:- हभररत वरतर, जयचनद उरर अरहत, ख पतसरनत पत u/s 91 Cr.P.C. "20.01.2025- पततवलल पपश हहयल पपकतर करतयल गयल। अभभयपकगण अभभतपज सससह सपरपश यतदव, रतर कक षणत उरर आर०कप ० यतदव व आर०पल० यतदव उरर रतर पततप ससरभ शरतर, यतदव जरतनत पर उपसससत हह। अभभयपकगण गयत बकश सससह कप दलपप सससह, अतपल भतवतरल, भतनप कप रतर बतरल, लवकप श, सपरपर उरर रतर सपरपर भवननद व सभचन कक हसजरल रतरक कत पतसरनत पत जररए भवदतन असधवकतगण पसतपत हहआ सपनत। कप वल आज कक सलए सवलकक त। अभभयपकगण ररपश यतदव व असभकत यतदव जन कतरतगतर रप भनरद हह जररए भवभडयन कतसफप सससग उपसससत हह अभभयनजन कक ओर सप अनय रससखक सतकय सरतप कक गयल। अभभयपक सपरपश यतदव कक ओर सप 930 बतवत पपसलस अधलकक रतयबरपलल कन पत इतयतभद पसतपत करनप हपतप समरन भपजप जतनप हपतप रय 931 ख शपस पत पसतपत हहआ सपनत आदपश 9305 आदपश हहआ भक वतद वतररतन रस अभभयनजन सतकय हपतप भनयत हह। अभभयनजन सतकय कप उपरतनत धतरत 313 द०प० ससभहतत कप बयतन दजर हननप कप उपरतनत बचतव सतकय कप सतर पर अभभयपक बचवत सतकय हपतप आवशयक पतसरनत पत पसतपत करनप हपतप सवतसत हह। इस सतर पर यह पनरणलय नहह हह। भनरसत भकयत जततत हह पततवलल भदनतसक 21.01.2025 हन।" 4. From the record, it is apparent that accused-applicant namely Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav is in possession of the document indicated in the application i.e. letter of Superintendent of Police, Raebareli No.da-197/2019 dated 19.11.2019 along with the report of the Circle Officer, Dalmau, Raebareli dated 18.11.2019 enclosed to the said letter No.da- 197/2019 dated 19.11.2019. कन वतसतप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत 313 ख पतसरनत पत पर पतररत भकयत गयत। द०प० ससभहतत पपश

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, as also the reasons for rejecting the application under Section 91 CrPC recorded by the trial court, as also the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court finds that no interference in the order dated 20.01.2025 is required as the accused- applicant can adduce the evidence at appropriate stage as indicated under Section 233 of CrPC.

6. Vide order dated 20.01.2025, impugned herein, the application of the applicant (Paper No. 932 Kha) for recall of all the prosecution witnesses has been rejected. The order reads as under: आर०पल०यतदव उरर रतर पततप यतदव, आर०कप ० यतदव उरर रतरकक षण यतदव, भवननद, सपरपर सभचन व रतनप बतरल नयतयतलय कप सरक वयभकगत पततवलल पपश हहई। अभभयपकगण सपरपश यतदव, " अतपल भतवतरल, लवकप श, हभररत वरतर, जयचनद उरर झपरहत, उरर रतरसपरपर, रप सप उपसससत हह। यप अभभयपकगण जरतनत पर हह। अभभयपकगण गयतबकश सससह उरर दलपप सससह, ससरभशरतर, हतसजरल रतरक पतसरनतपत पसतपत भकयत गयत, हह। अभभयपकगण ररपश यतदव एवस अभकर त यतदव जररयप वलभडयन कतनररपसनससग उपसससत। भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 873 पतसरनतपत 873 भवदतन असधवकत दतरत इस आशय कत पसतपत भकयत गयत सत भक अभभयपकगण सप रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश कप अनपपतलन रम पभतपकचछत ख कत उसल व अभभतपज सससह कक ओर सप सलयप सवलकक त भकयत जततत भनदरभशत भकयत जतयप एवस इसकक आपसत 894 ख एवस आपसत 894 खख- भदन सरतप करनप हपतप जन रतत आज कप ख जन वतदल कप ख एवस आपसत 894 ख भनसततररत कक जततल हह। नयतयतलय इस भनषकरर पर पहह अवलनकन भकयत। नयतयतलय रम भवचतरण रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपशतनपसतर भदन पभत भदन भकयत जत रहत हह। पकसक सप कनई आदपश पतररत भकयप जतनप कक आवशयकतत नहल हह। तदनपसतर, पतसरनतपत 873 भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 917 खख- पतसरनतपत 917 ख इस आशय कत पसतपत भकयत गयत हह भक नयतयतलय रम असधवकतओस कप भदन रम दन घनटप कत सरय भनधतरररत कर भदयत जतयप। पतसरनतपत रम भकयप गयप कसनन कक सतयतत कप समबनधन रम भबनत कनई भटपपणल भकयप हहयप - हचतत हह भक अभभयनजन दतरत अपनप सतभकयन कत बयतन असभकत करतयत जत चपकत हह। रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय दतरत वतद कक सपनवतयल भदन पभत भदन भकयप जतनप हपतप भनदरभशत भकयत जत यह पतसरनतपत भनरसत भकयप जतनप यनगय हह। तदनपसतर, भनरसत चपकत हह। ऐसल सससभत रम, भकयत जततत हह। भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 932 खख- पतसरनतपत 932 ससभहतत रय शपसपत 933 भकयत गयत भकख- यह पतसरनतपत पपनख पतसरनतपत ससखयत-930 ख रम रतसगप गयप अनपतनर हपतप पसतपत भकयत गयत हह। वतद वतसतप बयतन 313 दणड पभकयत ससभहतत कप बयतन असभकत हननप कप उपरतनत बचतव सतकय कप सतर पर सतभकयन कक सपचल बचतव पक दतरत पसतपत कक जत सकतल हह। उस सतर पर पतसर कक यतचनत पर भवचतर समभव हह। यह पतसरनतपत तदनपसतर, पतसरनतपत 935 पभकयत ससभहतत जररयप . पततवलल भदनतहक 22-01-2025 ख अभभयपक अभकर त यतदव कक ओर सप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत 313 दणड वलभडयन कतनररपसनससग न करतयप जतनप कप समबनध रम पसतपत हहआ। दस०प०सस० पपश हन।" दणड पभकयत ख पसतपत हहआ। पतसरनतपत पर सपनत गयत एवस आदपश पतररत ख अभभयपक सपरपश यतदव कक ओर सप अनतगरत धतरत-311 दणड पभकयत ससभहतत भनयत हह। धतरत-313 कन वतसतप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत-313 भनसततररत भकयत जततत हह।

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to indicate that the statement of the accused applicant in terms of Section 313 CrPC has already been recorded and the trial is pending since 2020 and the trial is based upon the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 377/2019 lodged on 10.10.2019.

8. Reverting to the facts related to the application under Section 311 CrPC preferred by the applicant, this Court based upon the contents of the application as also the prayer sought therein finds that the application for recall of all the prosecution witnesses was preferred in relation to the document which has not been summoned by the trial court. The prayer in this regard of the said application is extracted hereinunder: "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to recall and re-examine the prosecution-witnesses under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") in the light of the letter of S.P. no.da-197/2019 (n&197@2019) dated 19.11.2019 and the report of C.O. dated 18.11.2019 enclosed thereto (supra), which is absolutely necessary for a just and proper trial. Further, such other orders as may be deemed appropriate may kindly be passed so as to make this prayer effective and protect the rights of the applicant."

9. Learned A.G.A. opposed the present application. He stated that the application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in this view of the matter, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court.

10. Considered the aforesaid and the order impugned dated 21.01.2025 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

11. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

12. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, 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. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

13. In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

14. In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in- chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

15. In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance".

16. Taking note of the aforesaid, as also Section 233 CrPC, which relates to defence evidence, including the fact that the document(s) in relation to which the aforesaid application was preferred, has not been allowed by the trial court, this Court finds that no interference by this Court is required in the order dated 20.01.2025 whereby the application of the accused/applicant under Section 311 CrPC (Paper No. 932 kha) has been rejected.

17. The present application for the reasons aforesaid is hereby rejected.

18. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, advocate who has filed vakalatnama today which is taken on record.

2. By means of the present application, the accused/applicant has sought the following main relief(s): "For the facts, reasons and circumstances, stated in the accompanying affidavit, filed in support of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure No.-1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli on the application no.- 930Kha preferred by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure No.-2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli on the application no.- 932Kha preferred by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, in the interest of justice. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli to abstain from or not pass final Judgment in the case, arising out of Sessions Trial No.11/2020 (State Versus Suresh Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B, 216 IPC, till the final disposal of the present applicant in the interest of justice."

3. Vide order dated 20.01.2025, the application preferred by the defence for summoning the record under Section 91 CrPC has been rejected. The order dated 05.06.2024, impugned herein, is extracted hereinunder:- हभररत वरतर, जयचनद उरर अरहत, ख पतसरनत पत u/s 91 Cr.P.C. "20.01.2025- पततवलल पपश हहयल पपकतर करतयल गयल। अभभयपकगण अभभतपज सससह सपरपश यतदव, रतर कक षणत उरर आर०कप ० यतदव व आर०पल० यतदव उरर रतर पततप ससरभ शरतर, यतदव जरतनत पर उपसससत हह। अभभयपकगण गयत बकश सससह कप दलपप सससह, अतपल भतवतरल, भतनप कप रतर बतरल, लवकप श, सपरपर उरर रतर सपरपर भवननद व सभचन कक हसजरल रतरक कत पतसरनत पत जररए भवदतन असधवकतगण पसतपत हहआ सपनत। कप वल आज कक सलए सवलकक त। अभभयपकगण ररपश यतदव व असभकत यतदव जन कतरतगतर रप भनरद हह जररए भवभडयन कतसफप सससग उपसससत हह अभभयनजन कक ओर सप अनय रससखक सतकय सरतप कक गयल। अभभयपक सपरपश यतदव कक ओर सप 930 बतवत पपसलस अधलकक रतयबरपलल कन पत इतयतभद पसतपत करनप हपतप समरन भपजप जतनप हपतप रय 931 ख शपस पत पसतपत हहआ सपनत आदपश 9305 आदपश हहआ भक वतद वतररतन रस अभभयनजन सतकय हपतप भनयत हह। अभभयनजन सतकय कप उपरतनत धतरत 313 द०प० ससभहतत कप बयतन दजर हननप कप उपरतनत बचतव सतकय कप सतर पर अभभयपक बचवत सतकय हपतप आवशयक पतसरनत पत पसतपत करनप हपतप सवतसत हह। इस सतर पर यह पनरणलय नहह हह। भनरसत भकयत जततत हह पततवलल भदनतसक 21.01.2025 हन।" 4. From the record, it is apparent that accused-applicant namely Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav is in possession of the document indicated in the application i.e. letter of Superintendent of Police, Raebareli No.da-197/2019 dated 19.11.2019 along with the report of the Circle Officer, Dalmau, Raebareli dated 18.11.2019 enclosed to the said letter No.da- 197/2019 dated 19.11.2019. कन वतसतप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत 313 ख पतसरनत पत पर पतररत भकयत गयत। द०प० ससभहतत पपश

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, as also the reasons for rejecting the application under Section 91 CrPC recorded by the trial court, as also the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court finds that no interference in the order dated 20.01.2025 is required as the accused- applicant can adduce the evidence at appropriate stage as indicated under Section 233 of CrPC.

6. Vide order dated 20.01.2025, impugned herein, the application of the applicant (Paper No. 932 Kha) for recall of all the prosecution witnesses has been rejected. The order reads as under: आर०पल०यतदव उरर रतर पततप यतदव, आर०कप ० यतदव उरर रतरकक षण यतदव, भवननद, सपरपर सभचन व रतनप बतरल नयतयतलय कप सरक वयभकगत पततवलल पपश हहई। अभभयपकगण सपरपश यतदव, " अतपल भतवतरल, लवकप श, हभररत वरतर, जयचनद उरर झपरहत, उरर रतरसपरपर, रप सप उपसससत हह। यप अभभयपकगण जरतनत पर हह। अभभयपकगण गयतबकश सससह उरर दलपप सससह, ससरभशरतर, हतसजरल रतरक पतसरनतपत पसतपत भकयत गयत, हह। अभभयपकगण ररपश यतदव एवस अभकर त यतदव जररयप वलभडयन कतनररपसनससग उपसससत। भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 873 पतसरनतपत 873 भवदतन असधवकत दतरत इस आशय कत पसतपत भकयत गयत सत भक अभभयपकगण सप रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश कप अनपपतलन रम पभतपकचछत ख कत उसल व अभभतपज सससह कक ओर सप सलयप सवलकक त भकयत जततत भनदरभशत भकयत जतयप एवस इसकक आपसत 894 ख एवस आपसत 894 खख- भदन सरतप करनप हपतप जन रतत आज कप ख जन वतदल कप ख एवस आपसत 894 ख भनसततररत कक जततल हह। नयतयतलय इस भनषकरर पर पहह अवलनकन भकयत। नयतयतलय रम भवचतरण रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपशतनपसतर भदन पभत भदन भकयत जत रहत हह। पकसक सप कनई आदपश पतररत भकयप जतनप कक आवशयकतत नहल हह। तदनपसतर, पतसरनतपत 873 भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 917 खख- पतसरनतपत 917 ख इस आशय कत पसतपत भकयत गयत हह भक नयतयतलय रम असधवकतओस कप भदन रम दन घनटप कत सरय भनधतरररत कर भदयत जतयप। पतसरनतपत रम भकयप गयप कसनन कक सतयतत कप समबनधन रम भबनत कनई भटपपणल भकयप हहयप - हचतत हह भक अभभयनजन दतरत अपनप सतभकयन कत बयतन असभकत करतयत जत चपकत हह। रतननलय उचच नयतयतलय दतरत वतद कक सपनवतयल भदन पभत भदन भकयप जतनप हपतप भनदरभशत भकयत जत यह पतसरनतपत भनरसत भकयप जतनप यनगय हह। तदनपसतर, भनरसत चपकत हह। ऐसल सससभत रम, भकयत जततत हह। भनसततरण पतसरनतपत 932 खख- पतसरनतपत 932 ससभहतत रय शपसपत 933 भकयत गयत भकख- यह पतसरनतपत पपनख पतसरनतपत ससखयत-930 ख रम रतसगप गयप अनपतनर हपतप पसतपत भकयत गयत हह। वतद वतसतप बयतन 313 दणड पभकयत ससभहतत कप बयतन असभकत हननप कप उपरतनत बचतव सतकय कप सतर पर सतभकयन कक सपचल बचतव पक दतरत पसतपत कक जत सकतल हह। उस सतर पर पतसर कक यतचनत पर भवचतर समभव हह। यह पतसरनतपत तदनपसतर, पतसरनतपत 935 पभकयत ससभहतत जररयप . पततवलल भदनतहक 22-01-2025 ख अभभयपक अभकर त यतदव कक ओर सप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत 313 दणड वलभडयन कतनररपसनससग न करतयप जतनप कप समबनध रम पसतपत हहआ। दस०प०सस० पपश हन।" दणड पभकयत ख पसतपत हहआ। पतसरनतपत पर सपनत गयत एवस आदपश पतररत ख अभभयपक सपरपश यतदव कक ओर सप अनतगरत धतरत-311 दणड पभकयत ससभहतत भनयत हह। धतरत-313 कन वतसतप बयतन अनतगरत धतरत-313 भनसततररत भकयत जततत हह।

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to indicate that the statement of the accused applicant in terms of Section 313 CrPC has already been recorded and the trial is pending since 2020 and the trial is based upon the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 377/2019 lodged on 10.10.2019.

8. Reverting to the facts related to the application under Section 311 CrPC preferred by the applicant, this Court based upon the contents of the application as also the prayer sought therein finds that the application for recall of all the prosecution witnesses was preferred in relation to the document which has not been summoned by the trial court. The prayer in this regard of the said application is extracted hereinunder: "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to recall and re-examine the prosecution-witnesses under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") in the light of the letter of S.P. no.da-197/2019 (n&197@2019) dated 19.11.2019 and the report of C.O. dated 18.11.2019 enclosed thereto (supra), which is absolutely necessary for a just and proper trial. Further, such other orders as may be deemed appropriate may kindly be passed so as to make this prayer effective and protect the rights of the applicant."

9. Learned A.G.A. opposed the present application. He stated that the application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in this view of the matter, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court.

10. Considered the aforesaid and the order impugned dated 21.01.2025 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

11. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

12. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, 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. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

13. In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

14. In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in- chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

15. In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance".

16. Taking note of the aforesaid, as also Section 233 CrPC, which relates to defence evidence, including the fact that the document(s) in relation to which the aforesaid application was preferred, has not been allowed by the trial court, this Court finds that no interference by this Court is required in the order dated 20.01.2025 whereby the application of the accused/applicant under Section 311 CrPC (Paper No. 932 kha) has been rejected.

17. The present application for the reasons aforesaid is hereby rejected.

18. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench