Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134833 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3400 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile X And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionists is taken on record. Heard Shri Hemendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record. The revisionist has assailed the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor in Special Case No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu and others dismissing the applications (Kha-32 & Kha-33) dated 05.04.2024 of the revisionists for recalling PW-4/ Investigating Officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C in Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu Rathi and others regarding the First Information Report lodged on 13.12.2023 in Case Crime No. 1248 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor. As per prosecution case, on 13.12.2023 at about 7:30 PM complainant's son, Ashu, aged about 22 years was present at home. His son received a phone call from Rangashu and he reached Nagina Road in front of ITI College where Bhavya @ Happy was present and Babley, Alok, Deepanshu came on two motorcycles and started to hurling abuses on Bhavya @ Happy and his son, Ashu. Same day at about 07:45 PM his son was caught hold by Deepanshu and his unknown friend and co- accused, Babley and Alok Rathi, shoot his son by country made pistols as a result of which his son, Ashu, fell down on ground whereas Bhavya @ Happy got wounded. Complainant reached at that spot and took his son to the hospital, where his son was declared dead by the doctor and Bhavya @ Happy was admitted for treatment. In the present case, entire prosecution evidence has been recorded in Sessions Case No. 1094/2024, State Vs. Deepanshu, against the Babley a@ Akshendra, Deepanshu and Aditya who are major however, three persons, namely, Alok Rathi, Priyanshu, and Krish, are minors. Their trial has also been transferred into the same court, from the juvenile court as the matter related to heinous offence. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in Sessions Trial No. 1518/2024, State Vs. Priyanshu and others, evidence of PW-4, Amit Kumar, was recorded earlier and thereafter the eidence of eyewitnesses, namely, Bhavya alias Happy (PW-5) and Rikanshu (PW-6) was recorded, though it should have been recorded later and therefore, some important question could not be put to the investigating officer. Therefore, an application was moved on 05.04.2024 for recalling P.W.-4, Amit Kumar. Similar application was also moved on behalf of Priyanshu on 05.04.2025 filed by the co-accused, Priyanshu. In the aforesaid applications, it was specifically pointed out that there are a number of contradictions regarding place of incident, maar-peet during incident etc., therefore, the P.W.-4, investigating officer, should be recalled but the learned trial court has rejected the request of the revisionist by impugned order dated 29.04.2025. The order dated 29.04.2025 not permitting the revisionists to cross-examine P.W.-4 / Investigating Officer is not in accordance with law. It is also against the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. S.T. No. 1094 of 2024, State vs. Deepanshu is the trial of same incident, dealing major accused persons and while the bail of Deepanshu was rejected on 18.09.2024. A direction of complete the trial within the year was given. However, the entire evidence was completed in March-2025 and as such, it cannot be said that the accused persons are delaying the trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon in paragraph 18 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 649, and has submitted that the court must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions to the witness or a recalled witness. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submission made by counsel for the revisionist. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that in the present case, the statement of P.W.-4 was recorded earlier and thereafter the statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 were recorded. P.W.-4 is the Investigating Officer. The statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who are eye-witnesses, were recorded subsequently. A number of contradictions were pointed out in the statements of P.W.-4 and such facts are required to be elicited from P.W.-4 before the Court. Normally, the Investigating Officer is examined after the statements of the eye-witnesses are recorded. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist have force and are hereby accepted. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 is set aside. The applications, Paper Nos. Kha-32 and Kha-33, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The trial court is directed to recall P.W.-4 and thereafter proceed with the trial, after his re-examination. The re-examination of P.W.-4 shall be conducted within one month. The criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad