REENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present application has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dtd. 17/2/2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act (UPSIB), Gorakhpur, in Sessions Case No.626 of 2020 (State vs. Vinod Yadav and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.370 of 2019, under Ss. 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur by which the application of the applicant under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the applicant is facing criminal trial under Ss. 302 and 120B IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.370 of 2019, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that PW-1 was examined on 12/4/2022 and cross-examined on 4/1/2023 and 18/5/2024 but some important questions could not be asked from the PW-1- informant of the case and now the applicant-accused has engaged a new counsel, who found that cross-examination was not conducted on several aspects, therefore, he moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C./348 BNSS, which was wrongly rejected by the learned trial court vide order dtd. 17/2/2026. It is further submitted that earlier counsel appearing for the applicant did not cross-examined the PW-1-informant, therefore, the order dtd. 17/2/2026 be set aside by this Court and one more opportunity be granted to the applicant for cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Appex Court in the case of Ekene Godwin and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in Criminal Appeal No(s).1664-1665 of 2024, arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s).13406 -13407/2023.