VINAY @ LAMBOO v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.
A482/5048/2025 · 2025-06-24
Subhash Chandra Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146379 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146379 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36156 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5048 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay @ Lamboo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant Dubey,Gopal Ji Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, P.W. 2 is key witness and she has been examined before the learned trial court but some relevant questions were not asked by the then counsel, therefore, he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court as Paper no. 24-Ka but it was rejected by the learned trial court on 07.02.2025 without giving an opportunity of further cross- examination with the witness, P.W.2. The order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and erroneous, therefore, request to set it aside and allow the application giving him an opportunity of further cross-examination with the witness. He relied his
arguments on the case of Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and another in Application U/s 482 No. 12409 of 2022 decided by this Court on 16.06.2022. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, P.W. 2 was an injured witness and was examined before the learned trial court. Full opportunity of cross-examination was also given to the applicant. Several adjournment were already moved on the part of the applicant and allowed by the learned trial court and then her cross- examination was completed. Later on, other prosecution witnesses were also examined and case was fixed for the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Present application Paper no. 24-Ka was moved for re-summoning the P.W. 2, the injured witness Km. Roshani. The learned trial court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and full opportunity of cross-examination with the witness, the aforesaid application was rejected. There is no any illegality and impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 07.02.2025 but this application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of order passed by the learned trial court dated 07.02.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. it appears that an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant for re-summoning the P.W.2 Ku. Roshani as injured witness who was examined before the learned trial court on 3.4.2023 and cross-examined on 13.7.2023 and 21.8.2023 by the learned counsel for defence. Full opportunity of cross-examination was provided to him, thereafter Sri Suresh Kumar Pandey counsel for defence filed his Vakalatnama on 28.11.2023 and thereafter P.Ws. 4 to 11 were also cross-examined by him. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, case was fixed for statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CR.P.C. then present application was moved for recalling the witness P.W. 2. It also appears that chief-examination of P.W. 2 was conducted on 3.4.2023 but her cross examination could not be completed. On 13.7.2023 she was cross-examined and again on 22.7.2023 but her cross-examination was adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the defence and date was fixed
05.08.2023. On 21.08.2023 her cross-examination was completed by the learned court. In this way, several opportunities were given to the defence for cross-examination with the witness, P.W.2 and it was completed. There appears no any ground to re-summon the witness, P.W.2 for further cross- examination with the defence. In this way, there is no any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court dated
07.02.2025. As a result it does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.6.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench