Vinay Yadav @ Babloo @ Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8396 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Yadav @ Babloo @ Vinay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amitabh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Accused-applicant namely Vinay Yadav @ Babloo @ Vinay Kumar Yadav has approached this Court challenging the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Lucknow (in short "Trial Court") in Session Trial No. 514 of 2015 (State vs. Vinay Yadav @ Babloo & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2015 under Section 302, 394, 120-B, 411, 34 IPC, P.S.-Para, District-Lucknow. Facts, in brief, are to the effect that PW-1/Manoj Kumar Dubey was examined on 25.08.2015, PW-4/Sarwesh Pandey was examined on 09.05.2019, PW-5/Mohd. Shahid was examined on

25.11.2022 and PW-7/Archana Joshi was examined on

19.01.2023. Vide order dated 18.07.2024, the application dated

01.06.2023 preferred under Section 311 CrPC to recall the witnesses of fact namley PW-1/Manoj Kumar Dubey, PW-4/Sarwesh Pandey, PW-5/Mohd. Shahid and PW-7/Archana Joshi, for cross-examination has been rejected. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 reads as under:-"प्ቔावली के अवलोवन से दृቖኌगत होता है किक सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू०-1 मनोज कुमार दूबे की मुख्य परी्ቌा दिदनांक-25.08.2015 को अंकिकत की गयी थी तथा अभि*युक्त के विवद्वान अधि/वक्ता को दिदनांक-

03.09.2015 एवं दिदनांक-18.09.2015 को ቖኌजरह हेतु अवसर दिदया गया किकन्तु अभि*युक्त की ओर से ቖኌजरह हेतु कोई उपቖኌ5थत नहीं आया, ቖኌजस कारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभि*युक्त का सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू०-1 से ቖኌजरह का अवसर दिदनांक-18.09.2015 को समाप्त करते हुये प्ቔावली शेष साቌኚय में निनयत की गयी। दिदनांक-09.05.2019 को पी० डब्लू०-4 सव?श पाण्डेय की मुख्य परी्ቌा अंकिकत की गयी, किकन्तु ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा हेतु अभि*युक्त की ओर से कोई उपቖኌ5थत नहीं आया तथा अभि*युक्ता संगीता की ओर से 5थगन्ቚ ाथBना ्ቚ5तुत किकया गया। अभि*युक्तगणों की ओर से मामले को जानबूझकर विवलቖኌEबत किकया जाना पाते हुये न्यायालय द्वारा पी०डब्लू०-4 से ቖኌजरह का अवसर समाप्त किकया गया तथा प्ቔावली शेष साቌኚय में निनयत की गयी। दिदनांक-25.11.2022 को पी०डब्लू०-5 मो० सादिहद की मुख्य परी्ቌा अंकिकत की गयी अभि*युक्ता संगीता की ओर से ओर से ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा अंकिकत की गयी किकंतु अभि*युक्त विवनय यादव उ्ቛB बबलू की तर्ቛ से 5थगन ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ ्ቚ5तुत किकया गया। न्यायालय द्वारा 5थगन ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ को अ5वीकार करते हुये ቖኌजरह का अवसर समाप्त किकया गया तथा प्ቔावली शेष साቌኚय में निनयत की गयी। दिदनांक-12.01.2023 को पी० डब्लू0-7 अ्ቊBना जोशी की मुख्य परी्ቌा अंकिकत की गयी तथा अभि*युक्त संगीता की ओर से ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा अंकिकत की गयी। अभि*युक्त विवनय यादव की ओर से 5थगन ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ ्ቚ5तुत किकया गया। न्यायालय 5थगन ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ 5वीकार करते हुये दिदनांक-19.01.2023 को अभि*युक्त के विवद्वान को ቖኌजरह हेतु अवसर दिदया गया किकन्तु अभि*युक्त की ओर से पुनः 5थगन ्ቚाथBना्ቚ 5तुत किकया गया। ቖኌजस कारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभि*युक्त का सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू0-7 से ቖኌजरह कर अवसर दिदनांक-19.01.2023 को समाप्त करते हुये प्ቔावली शेष साቌኚय में निनयत की गयी। वतBमान में ्ቚाथI / अभि*युक्त विवनय यादव उ्ቛB बब्लू की ओर से ्ቚाथBनाप्ቔ अन्तगBत /ारा 311 दं०्ቚ०सं० ्ቚ5तुत कर सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू०1-मनोज कुमार दूबे, पी०डब्लू०-4 सव?श पाण्डेय, पी०डब्लू०-5 मो० सादिहद तथा पी०डब्लू०-7 अ्ቊBना जोशी से ቖኌजरह का अवसर ्ቚदान किकये जाने की या्ቊना की गयी है। अभि*युक्त के विवद्वान अधि/वक्ता की ओर से तकB दिदया गया है किक पूवB अधि/वक्ता की लापरवाही के कारण उक्त साቌኌ्ቌयों से ቖኌजरह नहीं की जा सकी थी, मामले के निन5तारण हेतु उक्त साቌኌ्ቌयों की्ቚ नितपरी्ቌा किकया जाना आवश्यक है। विवद्वान सहायक ቖኌजला शासकीय अधि/वक्ता (्ቛौजदारी) द्वारा विवरो/ करते हुये तकB दिदया गया किक अभि*युक्त को उपरोक्त गवाहों से ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा करने का पयाBप्त अवसर ्ቚदान किकया गया था, परन्तु उनके द्वारा जानबूझकर साቌኌ्ቌयों से ቖኌजरह नहीं की गयी, इसभिलए ्ቚाथBनाप्ቔ निनर5त किकये जाने योग्य है। प्ቔावली के सEयक अवलोकन से 5प है किक अभि*युक्त को पी०डब्लू०-1 मनोज कुमार दुबे पी०डब्लू०-५ सव?श पाण्डेय, पी०डब्लू०-5 मो० सादिहद तथा पी०डब्लू0-7 अ्ቊBना जोशी से ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा किकये जाने का पयाBप्त अवसर ्ቚदान किकया गया था, परन्तु उक्त नितधिथयों पर अभि*युक्त की ओर से अधि/वक्ता ቖኌजरह हेतु उपቖኌ5थत नहीं आये, ቖኌजस कारण न्यायालय द्वारा ्ቚनितपरी्ቌा का अवसर समाप्त किकया गया। प्ቔावली वषB

2015

से लቖኌEबत है। पी०डब्लू०

-1 की मुख्य परी्ቌा

25.08.2015

को अंकिकत की गयी थी

, ቖኌजसके संबं/ में

वषB पश््ቊात

वषB

2023

में एक ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ सा्ቌी को ቖኌजरह हेतु रिरकाल करने के

भिलये ्ቚ5तुत किकया गया है। इसी ्ቚकार पी०डब्लू०

-4 की मुख्य परी्ቌा

वषB 2019

में पी०डब्लू०

-5 की मुख्य परी्ቌा वषB

2022

में व पी०डब्लू०

-7

की मुख्य परी्ቌा वषB

2023

में अंकिकत हुयी है। न्यायालय द्वारा

पयाBप्त अवसर दिदये जाने के बावजूद उनके द्वारा जानबूझकर सा्ቌी से ቖኌजरह नहीं की गयी। अभि*युक्त के विवद्वान अधि/वक्ता द्वारा इस दौरान अन्य साቌኌ्ቌयों से ቖኌजरह *ी की गयी। किकसी *ी प्ቌकार को इस हेतु अनुमन्य नहीं किकया जा सकता किक वे वाद या विव्ቊारण की कायBवाही अनन्त काल तक लቖኌEबत रख सके। उन्हे इस हेतु *ी अनुमनित ्ቚदान नहीं की जा सकती किक अपनी 5वेच्छानुसार जब ्ቊाहे अपनी मजI अनुसार सा्ቌी को ቖኌजरह हेतु तलब करवा ले। ्ቚाथI / अभि*युक्त के विवद्वान अधि/वक्ता द्वारा ्ቚ5तुत माननीय उच््ቊतम न्यायलय द्वारा निनणIत विवधि/ व्यव5थाओं का ससEमान अवलोकन के पश््ቊात न्यायालय यह पाता है किक उक्त विवधि/ व्यव5थाओं में दभिशBत तथ्य एवं परिरቖኌ5थनितयां ्ቚ 5तुत मामले के तथ्य एवं परिरቖኌ5थनितयों से भि*न्न हैं। उक्त विवधि/ व्यव5थाओं का ला* अभि*युक्त / ्ቚाथI न्यायालय के विव्ቊारपूवBक किकये गये अभि*मत में पाने का अधि/कारी नहीं है। प्ቔावली में पी०डब्लू०-8 की मुख्य परी्ቌा और ቖኌजरह अंकिकत की जा ्ቊुकी है। ्ቚकरण / विव्ቊारण हत्या एवं लू जैसे गE*ीर अपरा/ का है। ऐसा ्ቚतीत होता है किक मा्ቔ मुकदमें की कायBवाही लंबिबत करने के उ्ቌेश्य से ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ ्ቚ5तुत किकया गया है। अतः ्ቚाथBना प्ቔ अन्तगBत /ारा-311 दं०्ቚ०सं० निनर5त किकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश्ቚ ाथI/अभि*युक्त विवनय यादव उ्ቛB बब्लू की ओर से ्ቚ5तुत ्ቚाथBनाप्ቔ अन्तगBत /ारा 311 दं०्ቚ०सं० दिदनांकिकत-01.06.2023 निनर5त किकया जाता है। प्ቔावली वा5ते साቌኚय दिदनांक-13.08.2024 को पेश हो।" It would be apt to indicate at this stage that statements of above named witnesses of fact have not been brought on record, though, the same ought to have been brought on record. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the applicant engaged an Advocate for conducting his case before the Court concerned and on 18.09.2015 on account of non-presence of the Counsel the Court concerned closed the opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. PW-2 was cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae on

03.08.2018 and on this date the applicant was present and from the order of the Trial Court drawn on 03.08.2018 it is not clear that who preferred the application for appointment of Amicus Curiae. On 09.05.2019 accused Sangeeta was present and other accused including the applicant were not present. The accused was represented by a Counsel, who preferred the exemption application and taking note of the facts of the case, the Court concerned closed the opportunity to cross-examine PW-4. On 25.11.2022 the applicant preferred an application seeking adjournment which was rejected and opportunity to cross-examine PW-5 was closed by the Court concerned. On 19.01.2023 the applicant was present and an application seeking adjournment was moved by the applicant and taking note of the facts of the case, the trial Court closed the opportunity to cross-examine PW-7. In the aforesaid background of the case, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant impeaching the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Trial Court stated that as per settled principle of law, the application ought to have been allowed and order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression "Fair Trial". As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter. Learned AGA opposed the present application. He stated that the application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in these circumstances of the case, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated

18.07.2024 and the principles related to recall the witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, 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). 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. 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. 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). 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

¶135In 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." 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". Having considered the aforesaid, this Court finds that application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial which has not been concluded despite almost 9 years elapsed and the process adopted by the defence is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. It is for the following reason(s):-

(i) The proceedings in issue are pending since 2015 and PW-1 was cross examined on 25.08.2015 and after elapse of about eight year, the application under Section 311 CrPC was preferred to recall the witnesses, named above.

(ii) PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 were examined and cross-examined in the year 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively, and despite opportunity given by the Court concerned these witnesses were not cross-examined. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench