Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25279 of 2018 Applicant :- Farman Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the orders dated 6.6.2018 passed in S.T. No. 137 of 2016 (State Vs. Altaf and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2016, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recall of the P.W.-1 Kunti Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, and also the informant, has been rejected.
In this regard, it is stated that the statement of P.W.-1 Kunti Devi was recorded on 30.6.2017. She had also been subjected to cross-examination by the applicant. Thereafter, evidence of other prosecution witness is being received by the learned court below. At present, testimony of P.W.-5 is being recorded.
At such stage, the applicant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-1, to subject her to further cross-examination on certain specific aspects and questions that have been mentioned by the applicant in the application.
That application had been rejected by the learned court below on the ground that the applicant had extensively cross-examined the said prosecution witness on 30.6.2017 and 14.7.2017, wherein the applicant had cross-examined the said prosecution witness with respect to the injury marks on the body of the deceased as also with respect to her mobile phone.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while two questions mentioned in the aforesaid order as had been proposed to be asked by the applicant have been mentioned, however, there are other questions which applicant had not been able to put to the said witness.
In the present application, it has not been shown that there was any specific line of cross-examination as was necessary to be made keeping in mind the nature of charges being faced by the applicant as may necessitate the recall of the said prosecution witness.
Consequently, the application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Prakhar