YOGENDRA SINGH DOHREY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused Yogendra Singh Dohrey (revisionist herein) against the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in S.T. No. 446 of 2009 : State v. Shekhar Tiwari and others and S.T. No. 447 of 2009 : State v. Vibha Tiwari whereby the application moved by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.-10 Shashi Gupta was rejected.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Special Counsel for the State who put up his appearance at the time of hearing this revision for admission. With the consent of the parties, this revision is being finally disposed of at this stage.

(3.) It reveals from the perusal of the record that the revisionist Yogendra Singh Dohrey is facing trial before Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in S.T. No. 446 of 2009 : State v. Shekhar Tiwari and others and S.T. No. 447 of 2009 : State v. Vibha Tiwari relating to Crime No. 299 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 342, 457, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act relating to Police Station Dibiapur, District Auraiya. It appears that in the trial pending before the court below, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case was fixed for recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. At this stage, the accused moved an application on 12.7.2010 praying for recalling prosecution witness P.W. 10 Smt. Shashi Gupta for further cross examination on the point stated in the application. The application was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the P.W.-10 Smt. Shashi Gupta had already been cross examined at length in about 46 pages and the application has been moved just to delay the proceedings of the case and further cross examination of P.W. 10 Smt. Shashi Gupta is not essential for the just decision of the case and the points setforth in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are not material. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties and going through the record of the case was of the view that it is not necessary to recall P.W.-10 Shashi Gupta and the application has no force and is liable to be rejected and accordingly the learned trial judge by his reasoned order, rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, this revision has been filed.