- (1.) Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. The learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not present. This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, ex-cadre Court No. 2, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 394 of 2010 whereby the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. recalling the witness Mohd. Kalim, P.W. 1 for further cross-examination, has been refused.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case in which the son of the applicant have been killed, its F.I.R. has been lodged by the brother of the applicant namely Mohd. Kalim, after completing the investigation charge-sheet has been submitted, on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance and the case has been committed to the Court of Session. The session trial is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, ex-cadre, Court No. 2, Sultanpur vide S.T. No. 394 of 2010 in which examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 Mohd. Kalim has been recorded on 19.9.2011 but P.W. 1 Mohd. Kalim was not cross-examined from the side of the accused, therefore, his evidence was closed by the trial court on 19.9.2011. Thereafter, on 27.9.2012 i.e., after more than one years, P.W. 1 Mohd. Kalim was cross-examined in which he was declared hostile. P.W. 1 Mohd. Kalim was won over by the accused persons, in such' circumstance, the applicant moved an application before the trial court permitting her to do the pairvi of this case, the same was allowed on 28.9.2012. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. mentioning therein the specific questions on which further cross-examination of P.W. 1 was essentially required, for the just decision of the case but the trial court without any proper reason, rejected the application moved by the applicant under Section 311, Cr.P.C. In case, P.W. 1 Mohd. Kalim is not recalled and the applicant is not permitted to cross-examine him, the ends of justice will not meet.
(3.) In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief but he has been declared hostile when he was cross-examined after a period of more than one year. The learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application moved under Section 311, Cr.P.C.;