KRIPA SHANKAR @ NANHEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the A.S.J/F.T.C. No. 5, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 188 of 1997, State v. Kripa Shankar, under Sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC, P.S. Madanapur, District- Shahjahanpur whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist filed certified copy of statement of P.W.-2 Anoop Katiyar, which is taken on record. Statement of P.W.-2 Anoop Katiyar was recorded on 27.3.2003. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist before the trial court on 4.6.2010 for recalling P.W.-2 for further cross-examination. It was mentioned in the application that a suggestion could not be given to P.W.-2 in cross-examination. The proposed question was also mentioned, which is to the effect that the incident did not take place in the manner, time and date as alleged by the prosecution.

(3.) THE Sessions Trial is pending since 1997. P.W.-2 was cross-examined in March 2003. after seven years at the stage of final argument, there is no justification for permitting further cross-examination of P.W.-2. The revisionist wishes to recall P.W.-2 merely to put a suggestion to him. Putting or not putting suggestion to the witness is hardly material. The fate of the case depends on hard facts and not on suggestion. There is no necessity for recalling P.W.-2 for merely putting a suggestion to him.