# Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kalu & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1357 of 2022
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-yadav-kalu-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49796
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 325, 307, 504 & 506 - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 311, 397, 401 - Revisionist
moved application u/s 311 CrPC before
Trial Court for the cross-examination of
PW-1 - Application was rejected with
detailed speaking order by Trial Court -
Being aggrieved, revision filed - Held, the
object of Section 311 CrPC enable the
Court at any stage of inquiry summon any
person as a witness - The object is to do
justice - It is done neither to fill up any
gap in the prosecution evidence nor to
give any unfair advantage against the
accused - This is the admitted fact that
accused persons are well known to PW-1
and they are villagers, so, the identity of
accused persons could not be doubted -
They could be identified even by word
spoken by them and time of incident is
about 6:30 p.m - At that time the question
of darkness is not arise - Hence, no
illegality in the impugned order. (Para 2,
3, 4, 8, 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

## Text

1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पिवनरस्त करने योग्य है, अतः वनरस्त वकया जाता
है।
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1106
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1357 of 2022

Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kalu & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Prem Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Rajesh Shukla, Surya Narayan Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 325, 307, 504 & 506 - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 311, 397, 401 - Revisionist
moved application u/s 311 CrPC before
Trial Court for the cross-examination of
PW-1 - Application was rejected with
detailed speaking order by Trial Court -
Being aggrieved, revision filed - Held, the
object of Section 311 CrPC enable the
Court at any stage of inquiry summon any
person as a witness - The object is to do
justice - It is done neither to fill up any
gap in the prosecution evidence nor to
give any unfair advantage against the
accused - This is the admitted fact that
accused persons are well known to PW-1
and they are villagers, so, the identity of
accused persons could not be doubted -
They could be identified even by word
spoken by them and time of incident is
about 6:30 p.m - At that time the question
of darkness is not arise - Hence, no
illegality in the impugned order. (Para 2,
3, 4, 8, 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prem Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Surya
Naryan
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision has been
preferred u/s 397/401 CrPC against the
order dated 26.11.2022 on the Application
dated 26.11.2022 u/s 311 CrPC moved by
revisionists, passed by Additional Session
Judge, Court No.7, Gonda in Session Trial
No.
85/2018,
vide
Crime
No.
C14/2014,u/s 323/325/307/504/506 IPC, P.S.
Wzir Ganj, Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for revisionists
submitted that the application u/s 311 CrPC
has been moved before learned trial court
with prayer that for the interest of justice he
want to cross-examine the PW-1 Sri Umesh
Dutt Singh on following points:

(i) Was it dark at the time of incident?

(ii) Were people's faces visible at the
time of incident?

(iii) Were you able to recognize the
accused Raj Karan, Krishna Kumar and
Shiv Kumar at the time of incident.

(iv) Was the accused name in written
report on the advice of villager's?

4. The trial court rejected the
application
of
revisionists
for
crossexamination of above points by detail
speaking order dated 29.11.2022, order of
learned trial court reflect that sufficient
cross examination has been done by
learned counsel for revisionist. Each and
every aspect touch by the trial court. Trial
is fix for 313 CrPC and on behalf of
revisionist delay tactics adopted by the
4 All. Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kalu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1107
revisionist and revisionist's application of
recall the witness PW-1 for further cross
examination
have
no
substance
and
application u/s 311 CrPC is devoid of merit
hence rejected. Being aggrieved with this,
the revision has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for revisionists
submitted that for just decision of the case,
cross-examination of PW-1 is inevitable
and due to ignorance of the earlier counsel
this question was not asked at the time of
cross-examination
of
the
prosecution
witness and learned trial court rejected the
application
u/s
311
CrPC
without
application of mind if the revision not
allowed
then
the
valuable
right
of
revisionist shall be curtailed and pray for
one chance for cross examination of PW-1.

6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed
and submitted that the accused persons and
witnesses are the resident of same village
and know each other well by their
colloquial stature and language and such
person can identify each other even in the
dark of night. Learned AGA further
submitted that the alleged date of incident
was mentioned in FIR as 18.2.2004 at 6.30
p.m. and at that time there was no dark as
the sunset time was about 6.00 p.m. Detail
examination of PW-1 has already been
conducted by learned trial court and
learned trial court rightly rejected the
application u/s 311 CrPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
revisionists as well as learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

Section 311 CrPC reads as under:

"Power to summon material witness,
or examine person present. Any Court
may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or
other proceeding under this Code, summon
any person as a witness, or examine any
person
in
attendance,
though
not
summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person already examined; and
the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and re- examine any such person if
his evidence appears to it to be essential to
the just decision of the case."

8. The object of Section 311 CrPC
enable the Court at any stage of any inquiry
summon any person as a witness, in order
to enable the Court to find out the truth and
rather just decision the salutary provision
of Section 311 are enacted. Thus, the object
of this provision is to do the justice. It is
done neither to fill up any gap in the
prosecution evidence nor to give it any
unfair advantage against the accused. The
fundamental thing to be seen is whether the
Court think it necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the particular case before
it and the power to be exercised u/s 311
CrPC only for strong and valid reason and
it should be exercised with caution and
circumspection.

9. On perusal of the order of learned
trial court, it is reflected that learned trial
court passed the detail order while rejecting
the application of the revisionists u/s 311
CrPC. This is the admitted fact that the
accused persons are well known to PW-1
and they are villagers, so, the identity of the
accused persons could not be doubted.
They could be identified even by word
spoken by them and the time of incident is
about 6:30 p.m. At that time the question of
darkness is not arise. Thus, on above
discussion this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality or irregularity in the
order of learned trial court.

10. The revision of the revisionists is
devoid of merit.
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Consequently, the revision is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1108
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4382 of 2022

Sandeep Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, Sri V.P. Srivastava Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Amar Chandra, Sri Sunil Kumar

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 304, 323 & 504 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,
319 - Criminal Revision against order
impugned by which - Court below on an
application of prosecution, summoned the
accused - Validity - FIR - Accused Vibha
Devi
and
revisionist
caught
hold
complainant's
father
and
co-accused
inflicted knife injuries causing serious
bleeding
-
During
investigation,
complainant and her sister, both have
corroborated
allegations
of
F.I.R
-
Investigating Officer has exonerated the
revisionist - On the basis of affidavits and
St.ments of some witnesses - Revisionist
was not present at the time of occurrence
and
from
CDR his
presence
is
not
established - Incident has occurred at the
house
of
complainant
and
except
complainant and her sister no other
person is named as eye-witness - It is
settled law that testimony of an injured
witness has greater evidenciary value and
should not be discarded, but for sound and
cogent reasons - Applying the test laid
down by Apex Court - There is strong
evidence
than
mere
probability
of
complicity of revisionist - It passes the
test which is more than prima facie case
as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to the
extent
that
the
evidence,
if
got
unrebutted, would lead to conviction -
Hence, no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 10, 11)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj. (2017) 7
Supreme Court Cases 706

2. Naveen Vs The St. of Har. in Criminal Appeal
No (s). of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
3746 of 2022)

3. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun. AIR 2014
Supreme Court page 1400

4. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj. (2017) 7
SCC page 706

5. Rajesh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 6 SCC
368

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dhiraj
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P.-opposite party no.1 and Sri Amar
Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2.

2. This criminal revision is directed
against order dated 27.09.2022 passed by
Additional Session Judge, Court No.1,
Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No.177 of
2016 (State Versus Ashok Kumar) arising
out of Case Crime No.377 of 2016 under
Section 304, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police
Station
Roja,
District
Shahjahanpur.