RAM NAYAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as also Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) By means of present application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the order dtd. 7/1/2022 passed by Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A. Court)/Additional Sessions Judge (Court. No. 07), Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 2008 (State v. Ram Nayak Singh and others), under Ss. - 147, 323, 427, 452, 506, 395, 394 IPC, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District- Sultanpur, whereby, the Application No. 188 Kha preferred by the applicant under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of witnesses i.e. PW-1/Ram Newal Tiwari and PW-7/Smt. Kiran Tiwari has been rejected.

(3.) By the order dtd. 7/1/2022, in issue, an application No. 185 Kha preferred by complainant/PW-1- Ram Newal Tiwari under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning two police officials namely Pradeep Singh and Ranvir Singh was also rejected but this part of the order is not in issue. It transpires from record that respondent No. 2/Ram Newal Tiwari (PW-1) preferred an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court of jurisdiction, whereupon, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Sultanpur passed the order dtd. 23/6/2003 and in compliance thereof, a Complaint Case was registered against the applicant and others. Considering the offence against the applicant and others, the case was subsequently registered as Sessions Trial No. 312 of 2008 (State v. Ram Nayak Singh and others), which at present is pending before the Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A. Court)/Additional Sessions Judge (Court. No. 07), Sultanpur. In the Sessions Trial, the charges were framed on 4/11/2008 and thereafter, the respondent No. 2/Ram Newal Tiwari (PW-1) was examined and his examination was concluded on 27/1/2009. Thereafter, other witnesses of the prosecution were examined. The examination of last witness of fact i.e. PW-7/Smt. Kiran Tiwari was concluded on 1/11/2021. The reafter, as per spirit of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the case was fixed for evidence of defence meaning thereby that it was fixed for examination of accused as also the defence witnesses, if any. On 24/11/2021, the statements of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Thereafter, an application dtd. 3/1/2022, wrongly mentioned as "3/1/2021", under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the new counsel engaged by the accused-applicant, which has been rejected by the order impugned in the present application.