In a significant ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has partially set aside a trial court’s order rejecting an accused’s request to summon certain police personnel as defense witnesses in a murder case linked to an incident at Somu Dhaba in Raebareli. The High Court, while allowing the summoning of three specific police officials to testify, rejected the production of certain documents, emphasizing the need to balance expeditious trials with the cause of justice. However, the court strongly admonished the applicant for concealing material facts, including endorsements closing defense evidence, warning against such conduct in future.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on July 7, 2025, pertains to Application U/S 482 No. – 2141 of 2025, titled Sachin Kumar Verma (Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni) vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another. The neutral citation for the case is 2025:AHC-LK0-38406. The matter was heard in Court No. 15, with Sri Devansh Singh Chathan appearing as learned counsel for the applicant, alongside Anil Kumar Yadav and Manoj Kumar. The State was represented by Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA-I, while Sri Vikas Vikram Singh appeared for opposite party no. 2. The Government Advocate (G.A.) also represented the opposite parties.
Background Facts of the Case
The case stems from an FIR lodged on October 10, 2019, against the proprietor and staff members of Somu Dhaba in Raebareli. The informant alleged that his son had gone to the dhaba for dinner with others, where he was assaulted with sticks and iron bars by the proprietor and staff. The dead body was later found near a godown near Garth Khas, with the informant expressing apprehension that it was made to appear as an accident. The postmortem report noted as many as ten injuries on the body.
Following investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on December 25, 2019. The trial court took cognizance on January 10, 2020, and framed charges on September 16, 2022, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2020 before the Sessions Judge, Raebareli.
On February 12, 2025, the applicant, Sachin Kumar Verma (also known as Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni), filed an application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon defense evidence. He requested the production of a preliminary inquiry report dated November 18, 2019, and a show cause notice dated November 19, 2019, issued by the Superintendent of Police, claiming these were relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, he sought extracts from the general diary of Police Station Mill Area, Raebareli, noting instructions to a police constable to close the eatery. The applicant also asked to summon the then Circle Officer, Dalmau, Raebareli, who had submitted the preliminary inquiry report finding certain police persons guilty of negligence; the Inspector in-charge of the police station who instructed officials to close the eatery; and a police constable and head constable who had visited the eatery and returned after closing it.
The trial court rejected this application on February 13, 2025, reasoning that the preliminary inquiry report was not essential for a just decision and was sought to delay the trial. It further held that the police persons were not prosecution witnesses, had not witnessed the incident, and their summoning was unnecessary, concluding the application aimed to cause delay and defeat justice.
Challenge Before the High Court and Key Arguments
The applicant challenged the trial court’s order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (noted as Section 528 BNSSS in the judgment), arguing that the documents and witnesses were crucial to establish his alibi. Specifically, he contended that the facts showing the dhaba remained open till 2:00 a.m. with staff present would prove his presence there, making it impossible for him to be at the alleged incident site, about 6 kilometers away.
Opposite party no. 2 filed a counter affidavit, annexing a trial court order dated February 20, 2025, where the applicant’s counsel endorsed that defense evidence for the applicant and co-accused Vinay Kumar was closed, signed by the accused including the applicant. The State filed a counter affidavit with an order dated February 21, 2025, recording similar endorsements for several accused, including the applicant, and noting that some co-accused (Luvkush, Atul Tiwari, Ramesh Yadav, and Arpit) sought time due to a pending criminal revision (No. 157/2025), leading the trial court to grant them opportunity to produce evidence.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the AGA-I argued that the applicant concealed the February 20, 2025, order while filing the petition on March 3, 2025. They highlighted a prior direction from the High Court in Bail Application No. 2431 of 2024 (dated January 1, 2024) for day-to-day trial without adjournments, upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 666 of 2024 (dismissed on January 16, 2024), requesting expeditious proceedings. The applicant’s interim stay on trial proceedings (granted March 23, 2025) without disclosing these was termed concealment. They invoked the inherent discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stressing that litigants must approach with clean hands, citing Supreme Court precedents like Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024) 4 SCC 432, which referenced cases emphasizing truth (“satya”) and condemning falsehood, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts as fraud on the court.
In reply, the applicant’s counsel argued that the February 20, 2025, order was irrelevant as the challenge was only to the February 13, 2025, order. He noted a supplementary affidavit filed on April 1, 2025, annexing the entire order sheet, claiming no concealment.
Legal Issues Involved and Court’s Reasoning
The primary question was the validity of the trial court’s rejection of the Section 233 Cr.P.C. application, amid allegations of concealment by the applicant.
On concealment, the court rejected the applicant’s submission, holding that the endorsements closing defense evidence on February 20 and 21, 2025, were highly relevant when challenging the rejection of further evidence. The applicant could have informed the trial court of his intent to challenge the order but chose not to. The supplementary affidavit, running into 1671 pages with the order buried at page 1539 and no specific averment about the endorsement, was deemed “crafty drafting” amounting to concealment given a semblance of disclosure. The court advised the applicant and counsel to avoid such conduct, warning of severe action, but proceeded on merits, noting that questions of personal liberty warrant prioritizing justice over drafting flaws.
On merits, the court held that expeditious trials are essential, but justice must prevail even if it causes some delay. The police persons’ statements regarding the dhaba’s operation till 2:00 a.m. and staff presence were relevant to prove the applicant’s alibi, as he could not be at two places simultaneously. However, the preliminary inquiry report and show cause notice, part of disciplinary action without conclusive findings, were irrelevant for the criminal trial. Similarly, the general diary extract was unnecessary, as oral testimony could suffice.
Court’s Decision
The application was partly allowed. The impugned order dated February 13, 2025, was set aside in part. Requests for the preliminary inquiry report (November 18, 2019), show cause notice (November 19, 2019), and general diary extract were rejected. However, summoning of Inspector in-charge Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Constable Virendra Bhargava, and Head Constable Suresh Chandra was allowed. The Superintendent of Police, Raebareli, was directed to ensure their production without delay, with the applicant’s counsel to examine them on the production date without adjournments.
