Kripa Shankar alias Nanhey vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 29.6.2010, passed by the A.S.J/F.T.C. No. 5, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 188 of 1997 State v. Kripa Shankar. under Sections 395, 397 and 412, I.P.C., P.S. Madanapur, district- Shahjahanpur whereby the application u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the revisionist was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist filed certified copy of statement of P.W. 2 Anoop Katiyar, which is taken on record. Statement of P.W. 2 Anoop Katiyar was recorded on 27.3.2003. Application u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the revisionist before the trial court on 4.6.2010 for recalling P.W. 2 for further cross-examination. It was mentioned in the application that a suggestion could not be given to P.W. 2 in cross-examination. The proposed question was also mentioned, which is to the effect that the incident did not take place in the manner, time and date as alleged by the prosecution.

The application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that application u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved after seven years of the recording of the statement of P.W. 2, who was sufficiently cross-examined. The case was fixed for final argument and at that stage there was no ground to recall P.W. 2. Hence, the application was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that suggestion was to be put to P.W. 2 that the incident did not take place on the date, time and place alleged by the prosecution and this suggestion could not be put to the witness earlier.

Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.

The sessions trial is pending since 1997. P.W. 2 was cross-examined in March, 2003, after seven years at the stage of final argument, there is no justification for permitting further cross-examination of P.W. 2. The revisionist wishes to recall P.W. 2 merely to put a suggestion to him. Putting or not putting suggestion to the witness is hardly material. The fate of the case depends on hard facts and not on suggestion. There is no necessity for recalling P.W. 2 for merely putting a suggestion to him.

In this view of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that the application u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure has been rightly rejected by the trial court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

The revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed at this stage.