Ram Chandra Tiwari and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Rejection of the application for summoning of defence witnesses by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IInd, Faizabad brings the accused to this Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

Shri Pradip Shukla, counsel for the applicants-accused and the Additional Government Advocate for the State have been heard at the admission stage itself.

The accused wanted to summon the previous Investigating Officer S.I. V. D. Lal, Dr. Saida Rizvi, Chief Medical Officer, and one more witness in defence. The trial court rejected the application primarily on the ground that it has not been clarified in the application as to why the applicants-accused want to summon the witnesses.

The counsel for the applicants has given reasons before us contained in application u/s 482 Cr. P. C, as to why the accused want to summon these witnesses, but those reasons, were not available before the trial Judge, when he passed the impugned order. Trial Judge was right in saying that why they want to summon these witnesses in defence evidence was not unravelled in the application.

It may be noticed that out of the three names of two of the witnesses, sought to be summoned as defence witnesses, are given in the list of the charge-sheet. Now, that the reasons have been given by the counsel for the accused, as to why they want to summon to those witnesses, it would be more appropriate, if the trial Judge examines these reasons and then comes to the conclusion, whether the witnesses should be examined as defence witnesses or not?

It does not seem very proper for us who have examined the matter piecemeal to give a verdict on desirability and propriety of the summoning of the witnesses as defence witnesses and the matter is, therefore, referred to the trial Judge setting aside the impugned order because he has heard and seen the other witnesses.

Unless there is clear indication that no fruitful purpose will be served by the summoning of the witnesses and the purpose of the accused is to only delay and confuse the trial, an application for summoning the defence witnesses should and in normal circumstances be allowed.

With these guidelines, we send back the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IInd for considering on merits, the reasons given by the applicants-accused in application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for summoning these witnesses, and then decide the application.

A copy of the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. will be annexed to the copy of this order to be sent to Fast Track Court IInd, Faizabad for information and compliance.

Application is disposed of accordingly.