Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5807 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20602 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjay Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pratap Singh,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Shri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 15.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial Nos. 429 of 2015 & 430 of 2015 (State Vs. Sanjay Tripathi) arising out of case crime No. 758 of 2015, under Section 304, I.P.C., whereby an application to produce Ajay as a defence witness as well as video recording of the incident taken in defence, has been partly dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law. It is further submitted that the application has been filed by the applicant for defence evidence in a case, which is related to the offence punishable under Section 304, I.P.C., which is related to harsh firing. It is further submitted that the application has been partly allowed to the extent of examination of Ajay as defence witness (who recorded the incident by his camera), but the video recording C.D. and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (prepared by said Ajay) has not been taken on record. The present trial is fixed for defence evidence. It is further submitted that after recording the examination of Ajay as PW-1, other evidence related to the said recording is necessary to be taken as a defence evidence otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 1 SCC 628. 5. In Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 1 SCC 628, the Supreme Court considered the issue of fair trial observing in Para 10, which is as under:- “10. This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) decided on 30.9.2013, after referring to its earlier judgments in Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing: Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’ and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial 3 is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. xx xx xx xx Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights.” 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, keeping in mind the settled position of law in Dr. Rajesh Talwar (supra) and without going into the merits of the case, the application is finally disposed of after modifying the order dated 15.5.2024 and the trial court is directed to take video recording C.D. and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act on record as defence evidence. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 T. Sinha Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad