Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
15. Having regard to the afore-stated principles, we turn to the facts of the instant case. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, the in-part acceptance of his application under Section 311 of the Code and consequent non-summoning of witness-Kanak Lata Singh. Secondly, closure of the opportunity to examine the summoned witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak. Let us examine these issues ad seriatim.
16. The prosecution recorded the statements of the formal witnesses but chose to only produce three witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3). After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 01.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of the Code for summoning Vinay Kumar Pathak and Kanak Lata Singh as independent witnesses. As noted previously, from the record, it transpires that Vinay Kumar Pathak is a friend of the petitioner and Kanak Lata Singh is the sister-in-law as well as neighbour of the petitioner. [2025] 2 S.C.R. Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
17. The contents of the FIR and the informant’s evidence suggest that it was Vinay Kumar Pathak who had made the call to the informant and called her to the petitioner’s home. He was also said to have been present on the spot of the incident. On the contrary, Kanak Lata Singh, though petitioner’s sister-in-law, is a neighbour but no material has come on record to suggest that she has any evidence to offer which would appear to be essential to the just decision in trial. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the Orders of the Courts below in denying to issue summons to Kanak Lata Singh.
18. The Trial Court vide Order dated 18.05.2024 directed the accused to ensure the presence of Vinay Kumar Pathak on 30.05.2024, on which date defence evidence was to be presented. As noted by the High Court in the Impugned Order, nothing has been disclosed as to what happened on the said date. No order/proceeding of that date has been produced even before this Court. Nevertheless, it appears that the witness was not examined on the date fixed. Thereafter, the matter came up on 05.06.2024, when although the witness was present, an adjournment was sought by the defence on the ground of ill-health of learned counsel concerned. The Trial Court granted the adjournment as a last opportunity and imposed cost of Rs.1,000/- on the petitioner. The matter was then taken up on the next day, on 06.06.2024, when the witness was absent and thus, the Trial Court closed the opportunity to examine him.
19. From the above sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the defence was given ample opportunity to examine the witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak. The onus was on them to ensure his presence and examine him. We are not in agreement with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the witness was arrayed in the list of prosecution witnesses, it was incumbent on the prosecution to examine him in the first instance. We may only note that the said witness never entered the witness box as a prosecution witness, and he was summoned as an independent witness on application made by the petitioner.
20. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code were recorded on 01.05.2023. The first application under Section 311 of the Code filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2023 and the matter was posted for defence evidence on 10.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present 1844 application under Section 311 of the Code on 19.09.2023. It is to be borne in mind that the High Court vide Order dated 25.07.2022 referred supra had directed expeditious decision in the trial. In this factual background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt dilatory tactics and delay the conclusion of the trial. The conduct of the petitioner in preferring successive applications under Section 311 of the Code and seeking adjournments, we may add, goes to show his evasive tactics, non-cooperation and disinterest in early conclusion of the trial. This Court will not be party to such abuse of the process of law. On this count too, we do not find any infirmity with the Impugned Order.
21. In view of the above, the petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Special leave is refused; the Impugned Order of the High Court being well-reasoned is affirmed.
22. No order as to costs. I.A.s No.177474/2024 and 177477/2024 are allowed; exemptions sought for are granted. Result of the case: Petition dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan