RITURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.Learned counsel for the applicant files rejoinder affidavit today, taken on record.

(2.) This revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dtd. 24/6/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), First Prayagraj in Sessions Trial No. 840 of 2015 (State Vs. Rakesh Raj and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2015 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. Police Station Karchhana, District Allahabad to the extent of rejection of application no.94Kha filed by the revisionist under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for cross examining P.W.1-informant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a first information report was lodged on 20/5/2015 at about 11:00 A.M. with regard to the incident alleged to have taken place in between 06:30 A.M. to 07:00 A.M. on the same day, against the revisionist and four other accused persons in Case Crime No. 238 of 2015 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. in which, after investigation charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance was taken on 20/8/2015 and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 940 of 2015 (State Vs. Rakesh Raj). Thereafter the trial began and the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.10 were recorded before the trial. He further submits that after a lapse of about seven years, the revisionist has got a news bites on India T.V. in which the informant Awadesh Kumar Srivastava, the eye-witness of the said incident had specially stated that though the incident had taken place but he do not know anything about it. Learned counsel further argued that with regard to the aforesaid interview a certification under Information Technology Act was also obtained wherein it has been opined that in the said video file, no sign of digital forgery has been found in the recorded Ss. and on the basis of the same, the Cyber Forensic Expert had opined that the video file K-1, is not tampered and the said video is continuous and genuine. Learned counsel further argued that the since the P.W.1, alleges himself to be an eye-witness of the incident has already denied that he is an eye-witness of the incident in the video and he has not seen the incident therefore in the interest of justice and fair trial, the revisionist moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and cross examining the P.W.1, which application has been illegally rejected vide order impugned. Learned counsel further argued that since the matter pertains to the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. therefore it was absolutely necessary in the interest of justice and for fair trial, the application 94Kha ought to have been allowed but the learned trial Court has rejected the same without applying its judicial mind in the most arbitrary manner.