The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has set aside a trial court order that had closed an accused’s right to cross-examine two key prosecution witnesses. Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that an accused instructing his counsel not to argue, especially when produced from custody, cannot be a valid reason to close an important stage of the trial, as it would cause “acute prejudice” to the accused. The court directed the trial court to provide a fresh opportunity for the cross-examination.
Case Background
The application was filed by Maniram Pal @ Maniram against an order dated June 23, 2025, from the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Pratapgarh. The case originates from Case Crime No. 257 of 2020, under Section 307 (Attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, lodged at Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh.
According to the prosecution story, the FIR was lodged on September 24, 2020, following an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding an alleged incident on February 27, 2020. The applicant, Maniram Pal, was arrested on August 29, 2023, and was granted bail on December 12, 2024. During his incarceration, two key witnesses, PW-2 Ramesh Pal and PW-3 Dr. Anuj Kumar Chaurasiya, were examined on June 20, 2024, and October 21, 2024, respectively. The trial court closed the opportunity for their cross-examination, and a subsequent application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall these witnesses was rejected by the impugned order.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicant’s counsel, Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, argued that the trial court’s reasons for rejecting the application were “baseless and perverse.” The trial court had noted that when the applicant was produced from jail, he started shouting and instructed his counsel not to argue, leading the counsel to withdraw from the case. The trial court also noted that another advocate on record was not called by the pairokar (a person who looks after the case). The applicant’s counsel contended that closing the opportunity to cross-examine two important witnesses in such a “cursory manner” would cause severe prejudice.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manju Devi versus State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 203, where it was held that the discretionary powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are intended to ensure a just decision and that the age of a case cannot be the sole reason for rejecting such an application.
Conversely, the counsel for the informant, Ms. Swati Sharma, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Sushil Pandey, vehemently opposed the application. They argued that the applicant himself had chosen not to cross-examine the witnesses by instructing his advocate not to argue. They submitted that this was a “dilly dallying practice” to delay the trial and that the trial court’s order was justified.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Shree Prakash Singh, after hearing the parties, analyzed the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which empowers a court to recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears essential for a just decision.
The Court observed that the trial court’s reasoning was flawed. It noted that since the applicant-accused was produced from jail, “the things were not in control of him.” The High Court found that the act of the accused instructing his counsel not to argue “can not be a reason so as to close the important stage of a trial, not affording an opportunity of cross-examination.”
The judgment further pointed out a procedural lapse by the trial court. The Court stated, “…it should have been asked by the learned trial court to the accused that whether he wants another counsel or any amicus in his case, which is also missing apparently from the order impugned.”
Emphasizing the importance of cross-examination, the Court stated, “the opportunity of cross-examination is one of the most important stage and failing which, certainly prejudice would be caused.” The Court underscored that the paramount goal of a trial is to determine the truth and arrive at a just decision. It observed:
“The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to discover all relevant facts to arrive at a just decision of the case which in fact is the paramount goal of a trial.”
The Court concluded that since PW-2 and PW-3 are important witnesses, the opportunity to cross-examine them is a “must.” Finding the trial court’s order dated June 23, 2025, to be “unsustainable,” the High Court set it aside.
Consequently, the application was allowed, and the trial court was directed to afford the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3, on a suitable date. The Court added a caveat that if the accused does not cooperate, the trial court would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
