Allahabad High Court

AMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court was correct in closing the accused's opportunity to cross‑examine the witness, as the accused repeatedly failed to appear despite being granted extensions.

Summary

The appellant Aman Singh appealed against the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, which had closed his opportunity to cross‑examine PW‑1 in a case involving offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court observed that PW‑1’s examination‑in‑chief was recorded in May 2017 and, despite multiple applications and extensions, the accused failed to appear for cross‑examination on the dates fixed, including a day when the witness was present in court. The trial court therefore held that the accused’s right to cross‑examination was exhausted and dismissed the application for further opportunity. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the trial court’s closure of the cross‑examination right was lawful. It affirmed that the trial court acted within its discretion, noting that the accused had repeatedly misused the process and that no illegality or irregularity was found. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in closing the accused's opportunity to cross‑examine the witness after repeated failure to appear
Whether the appellate court can set aside the trial court's decision on the ground of procedural irregularity in the cross‑examination process

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 147, 323, 366, 376, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(xii)

Subjects

cross‑examination
right to be heard
criminal procedure
abuse of process
SC/ST Act
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6900 of 2026

Aman Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Saurabh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 90
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order
dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah,
in Special Trial No. 57 of 2026 (State v. Aman Singh), arising out of Case
Crime No. 346 of 2015, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah.

3. Learned A.G.A. has filed a compliance affidavit before the Registry,
which is not on record. The Registry is directed to place the same on record.

4. The present F.I.R. was registered in the year 2015 under Sections 147,
376, 506, 366, 120-B, and 323 I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one more opportunity
may be provided to the appellant in the said case to cross examine the P.W.-
1.

6. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, observed that
upon perusal of the record, it appeared that the examination-in-chief of
P.W.-1 was recorded on 02.05.2017. As the accused did not cross-examine
the said witness on that date, his right to cross-examination was closed.
Thereafter, the accused filed application 32-Kha seeking time to cross-
examine P.W.-1, which was allowed by the learned trial court on
05.09.2024. Even thereafter, the accused failed to complete the cross-
examination of the said witness. On 05.01.2026, the witness was present
before the court since morning, but no one appeared on behalf of the accused
to cross-examine her. Consequently, the opportunity for cross-examination
was closed once again. Subsequently, the accused filed another application
CRLA No. 6900 of 2026
2

seeking further opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

7. The learned trial court observed that sufficient opportunity had already
been provided to the accused for cross-examination. Despite this, the
accused failed to complete the cross-examination. The examination-in-chief
of P.W.-1 was recorded in the month of May 2017, yet the cross-
examination remained incomplete. Although granted another opportunity
upon application, the accused again failed to cross examine the P.W.-1. On
the relevant date, while the witness remained present in court since morning,
neither counsel for the accused appeared nor was any adjournment
application filed. Hence, the opportunity to cross-examine was rightly
closed.

8. While the opportunity of hearing is an inherent right of the accused, the
abuse and misuse of the process of law to make court proceedings run at the
whims and wishes of the accused is not the intention of the law. The
appellant/accused cannot be permitted to use and misuse the entire legal
process according to his own whims and wishes. The time has come when
unscrupulous litigants who used and misused the process of law and wants
the trial proceedings to move at their whims and wishes. It must be
discouraged not encouraged.

9. With these observations and findings, this Court finds no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order.

10. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.

September 29, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…