HARIBHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

(2.) By means of the instant application the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dtd. 22/12/2023, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Court No.4, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.467 of 2016, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 302 I.P.C. Police Station Jamo, District Amethi, whereby the application filed by the applicant and another co-accused Ram Nath Singh under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW-1 for being cross-examined by them has been rejected.

(3.) The application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that the accused Deependra Singh was summoned to face trial under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. after PW-1 was reexamined and he was cross-examined on behalf of the newly added accused Deependra Singh. However, other accused person did not cross-examine the said witness after his recall. It was stated in the application that after a person is summoned as an accused under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. the trial starts de novo and therefore all the accused persons have the right to cross-examine him. The learned trial court rejected the application without taking into consideration the fact that after PW-1 was examined by the prosecution the counsel for the applicant had cross-examined him and the record of cross examination runs into 17 pages. The said witness was cross-examined by other co-accused Ram Nath Singh also and that cross-examination runs into 7 pages. Deependra Singh was summoned to face trial under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. after PW-1 had been examined. In these circumstances there is no ground for recalling the PW-1 for being cross-examined by the accused person, on whose behalf he has already been cross-examined extensively.