Fakeera vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Chaurasia, J.—Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.09.2011, passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr, in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2009, State Versus Fakeera, u/s 376 I.P.C., whereby, he rejected the accused/revisionist''s application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix for further cross-examination.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. can be moved at any stage before delivery of judgment and it cannot be rejected on the ground that it has been moved at belated stage; that the relevant questions, which were proposed to be asked from the prosecutrix, have been mentioned in the application itself and further cross-examination on those points is essential for just decision of the case; that if an opportunity to further cross-examine the prosecutrix is not provided, the accused/revisionist may be prejudiced in his defence. He has further submitted that the learned trial court without its judicial mind has rejected the accused/revisionist''s application illegally and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that reasonable opportunity was provided to the accused/revisionist to cross-examine the prosecutrix and he had also availed the said opportunity and the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved for further delaying the proceedings of the trial and it has been rejected by the learned trial court rightly and the impugned order does not call for any interference.

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisionist is facing trial, u/s 376 I.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was concluded on 29.7.2009 and, thereafter, evidence of other prosecution witnesses was recorded and the prosecution evidence was closed on 19.1.2010. Thereafter, more than 35 dates have been fixed for arguments, but, the arguments could not be concluded. The application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix for further cross-examination was moved on behalf of the accused/revisionist on 11.7.2011. It cannot be disputed that such application can be moved at any stage before delivery of judgment, but, every case has to be judged on the peculiar facts and circumstances of it. The learned trial court has considered the questions proposed to be asked from the prosecutrix and has recorded categorical findings thereon.

After considering the record, impugned order and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or impropriety in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the accused/revisionist''s application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and hence, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

This criminal revision lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.