Court No. - 78Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128358 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26063 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajeev
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pushp Raj Singh, learned brief holder for the State are present.
2. Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 6.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Baghpat in Session Trial No. 413 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajeev and others) arising out of case crime No. 200 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 201, 404, 120-B, I.P.C., Police Station Chaprauli, District Baghpat, whereby an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. has been partly rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court passed the impugned order dated 6.5.2024 and allowed the witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-4 and P.W.-6 only and rejected the application for cross-examination of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 against the settled principle of fair trial.
4. It is further submitted that at the present stage, cross-examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 is completed and the Session Trial is pending for cross- examination of P.W.-6.
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
1
2
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 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."
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, keeping in mind the settled position of law and without going into the merits of the case, the application is finally disposed of after modifying the order dated 6.5.2024
3
and the trial court is directed to call the witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 for cross-examination to the present applicant. It is made clear that all the evidence recorded earlier to the cross-examination is readable at the time of judgment.
Order Date :- 8.8.2024
T. Sinha