Govind v. State Of Up

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Govind, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash two orders dated 03.08.2023 and 02.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 1369 of 2008 (State v. Vishal and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The orders pertained to the dismissal of the applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The applicant had earlier been allowed cross-examination of PW-3 (Rashmi Ranjan Mohanti), an injured eyewitness in the murder case, on payment of costs. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed an adjournment application filed by the applicant due to the non-availability of his counsel on account of viral fever. The applicant contended the necessity of cross-examining PW-3 for a just decision in the case and undertook to complete the cross-examination on a day-to-day basis if recalled.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the orders dated 03.08.2023 and 02.01.2024 passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the adjournment application respectively, should be quashed in the interest of a fair trial.
2. Whether the trial court should be directed to recall PW-3 for cross-examination and allow the cross-examination to be completed on a day-to-day basis.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The applicant argued that PW-3 is an injured eyewitness in the murder case, and cross-examination of this witness is essential for a just decision.
• The applicant submitted that the trial court had allowed cross-examination of PW-3 upon payment of costs but later dismissed his adjournment application due to counsel’s illness.
• An undertaking was given that if PW-3 is recalled, the cross-examination would be completed on a day-to-day basis without delay.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

• The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) pointed out that the case is listed for final arguments and that the Sessions Trial has been pending since 2008, implying the need for expeditious disposal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I and another, (2014) 16 SCC 628	Principle of fair trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and its importance in criminal jurisprudence.	The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that fair trial is essential and must not be hampered, underscoring the necessity of recalling PW-3 for cross-examination to ensure justice.
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013)	Reaffirmation of fair trial principles and the role of courts in ensuring justice.	Used to highlight the importance of judicial calm and impartiality in trials, supporting the direction to complete cross-examination without undue delay.
Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335	Fair trial and protection of accused's rights in criminal proceedings.	Referenced to reinforce the right to fair trial as a constitutional mandate.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367	Fair trial and judicial responsibility to uphold justice.	Invoked to emphasize the court’s duty to maintain public confidence and prevent oppressive conduct in criminal trials.
Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260	Fundamental right to fair trial and its impact on liberty and justice.	Applied to underline that fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 and must be ensured.
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750	Fair trial principles and safeguards against violation of constitutional rights.	Used to support the proposition that denial of fair trial violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (2013) 5 SCC 741	Fair trial as a human right and its constitutional significance.	Referenced to strengthen the argument that fair trial is central to criminal jurisprudence and democratic polity.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the facts and submissions without delving into the merits of the underlying case. It emphasized the settled legal position regarding the right to a fair trial, citing authoritative Supreme Court precedents that establish fair trial as a fundamental and human right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that fair trial requires an impartial process and must not be obstructed by procedural technicalities or delays. Given that PW-3 is an injured eyewitness whose cross-examination is crucial for justice, and considering the applicant’s undertaking to complete the cross-examination expeditiously, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The Court directed the trial court to recall PW-3 and facilitate day-to-day cross-examination to ensure the trial proceeds fairly and justly.

Holding and Implications

The Court set aside the orders dated 03.08.2023 and 02.01.2024 and disposed of the present application with directions to the trial court to recall PW-3 for cross-examination and to record the cross-examination on a day-to-day basis until completion.

This decision directly affects the parties by ensuring the accused’s right to cross-examine a key eyewitness is protected, thereby reinforcing the principle of fair trial. No new precedent was established; rather, the Court applied established legal principles to safeguard procedural fairness in the ongoing trial.