SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

Saud Faisal vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh - (Supreme Court) (21 Jun 2022)

Different statement given by the same prosecution witness in another case would not be a reason for recalling the witness

MANU/SC/0810/2022

Criminal

The Petitioner before present Court had challenged the order which has been passed in Sessions Trial before the High Court whereupon the impugned judgment and order was passed. By the said order, an application, moved by the accused/Petitioner before this Court, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), has been dismissed. The Petitioner who is one of the accused/Petitioner facing the trial for an offence related to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Prosecution witness no.1 gave a statement in his examination-in-chief stated that he had clearly identified the Petitioner/accused Saud Faisal as one of the assailants who was carrying a rifle. This particular witness (that is PW1) was also put to a lengthy cross-examination but it could not contradict his testimony.

Relating to the same incident, the Petitioner/accused was also facing a case under the Gangsters Act. The same witness (PW1- Nausad) was examined in that proceeding as PW1. He gave a statement that although he could identify the two other witnesses i.e. Shere and Rashid, the third assailant, that is the Petitioner/accused, could not be identified as he was wearing a cloth on his face. Now, on the basis of this statement given by PW1 in the gangster’s case in the year 2021 that is after he has given his statement as was also cross-examined at length in the present trial in the year 2014, an application was moved under Section 311 of CrPC for recalling this witness.

The trial court has rejected this application and in present Court’s view rightly so, for the reasons that merely because a different statement has been given by the same prosecution witness in another case could not be a reason for recalling the witness and that too, after a period of seven years. It is not a case where a contradictory statement was given by some other witnesses in the present trial. Under these circumstances, present Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the High Court. Petition dismissed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved