HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5249 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1.Heard Shri Hemendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. 2.Revision is being disposed of with the consent of the parties on the admission stage. 3.This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor in case crime no. 1248 of 2023 (Special Case no. 1518 of 2024) under sections 147,148,149,302,323,504 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Shahar District Bijnor, thereby dismissing the application of the revisionist for examining P.W.4, Amit Kumar and P.W.5, Bhavya alias Happy prior to the defence evidence. 4.Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that First Information Report was lodged on 13.12.2023 as case crime no.1248 of 2023 under sections 147,148,149,302,323,504 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Shahar District Bijnor. As per prosecution case the complainant lodged a report that on 13.12.2023 at about 7.30 P.M. his son Ashu aged about 22 years was present at home. At the same time, his son received a phone call from Rangashu.Whereupon his son reached at Nagina Road in front of ITI College where Bhavya @ Happy was present and Babley, Alok,Deepanshu came there riding on two motorcycles and started to hurl abuses on Bhavya @ Happy and his son Ashu.Same day at about 7.45 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avesh Mishra, G.A. Juvenile X .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) P.M. his son was caught hold by Deepanshu and his unknown friend and accused, Babley and Alok Rathi shoot his son by country made pistol. As a result his son Ashu fell down on ground whereas Bhavya @ Happy got wounded . He reached at place of incident and took his son to hospital, where his son was declared dead by the doctor and Bhavya @ Happy was admitted for treatment. 5.In the present case ,entire prosecution evidence has been recorded in Sessions Case No. 1094/2024(State Vs. Deepanshu against the Babley @ Akshendra, Deepanshu and Aditya, who are major,however, three persons namely, Alok Rathi, Priyanshu and Krish are minors.Their trial has also been transferred to the same court from the juvenile court as the matter is heinous. Regarding the same incident as mentioned above, six persons were made accused out of which Akshendra alias Babley, Deepanshu and Aditya were major and their Sessions trial number was 1094/2024, State Vs. Deepanshu and others. 6.In this trial, the entire evidence has been completed, however,in the meantime, the trial of juvenile in S.T. No. 1518 of 2024,State Vs. Priyanshu and others under Sections 147, 148, 149,302. 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor arises out of case crime no. 1248/2023 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 307/149, 504 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor has also been transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor. 7.In the same trial, the trial court rejected the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the I.O. against which the Criminal Revision No. 3400/2025 was filed which was allowed by this Court on 08.08.2025. The dispute decided in the aforesaid revision was that in case statement of I.O. is recorded prior to the eye witnesses and contradictions arose therefore, he may be permitted to be recalled which was allowed by this Court by the aforesaid order.. 8.The trial court recalled PW-5 imposing restriction not to ask particular questions. On 29.07.2025, two defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 were examined in the court so that the trial may not be delayed, however, after, CRLR No. 5249 of 2025 2 the orders dated 08.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 by which the PWs were recalled on the orders of High Court moved the application dated 19.08.2025 for examining PW-4 and PW-5 i.e., Investigating Officer and an eye witness and thereafter, the rest of defence evidence may be recorded. The aforesaid application dated 19.08.2025 which was moved in the court on 27.08.2025 by the revisionist and on that day statement of , Dr. Radhey Shyam was recorded as defence witness who had of examined the injuries of the revisionist. In the aforesaid application, it was specifically mentioned that since the PW-4 and PW-5 have been allowed to be examined by this Court therefore, their evidence may be recorded first and thereafter, the rest of defence evidence may be recorded but the said application was dismissed by the trial court on 27.08.2025 which is the order impugned in the present criminal revision.The trial court has not even cared to look the application. 9.The trial court has not even cared to look at the application properly. moved by the revisionist in which the prayer for examination of PW-4 and PW-5 prior than the defence evidence was made and deliberately did not decide the issue at all and simply directed to produce rest of the evidence of defence. The trial court has not recorded any reason as to why the PW-4 and PW-5 should not be recorded prior than the defence witnesses because of ill-will as its earlier two orders rejecting the applications under Section 311 CrPC have been set aside by this Court's orders dated 08.08.2025 and 12.08.2025.. 10.According to the CrPC, trial proceeds in following manner: 228 Cr.P.C. - Framing of charges 229 Cr.P.C. - Conviction on plea of guilty 231 Cr.P.C. - Evidence for prosecution 232 Cr.P.C. - Acquittal if no evidence233 Cr.P.C. - Entering upon evidence 234 Cr.P.C. - Arguments 235 Cr.PC. - Judgment of acquittal or conviction 11.According to the aforesaid provisions and even otherwise, the prosecution evidence should be recorded prior than the defence evidence CRLR No. 5249 of 2025 3 which is yet to be produced.However, in present case, only two defence witnesses were examined on 29.07.2025 till this Court did not allowed the earlier revisions. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that he has no objection in case the prayer of the revisionist is accepted. 13.In view of the above, the order dated 27.8.2025 passed by the Children's Court, Bijnor is hereby set aside. 14.The Children's Court Bijnor is directed to permit the examination of P.W.4 and 5 prior to recording of remaining defence evidence. 15.In view of the above, the revision is allowed. September 25, 2025 Atul kr. sri. CRLR No. 5249 of 2025 4 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad