Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

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