2016 Supreme(SC) 660

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
State of Haryana – Appellant(s)
Versus
Ram Mehar & Others Etc. Etc. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 805-806 OF 2016 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 3278-79 of 2016)
Decided On : 24-08-2016

MAIN POINTS
Concept of fair trial cannot be stretched limitlessly.
Recall of witnesses cannot be allowed on grounds of accused persons being in custody, prosecution having been allowed to recall some of its witnesses earlier, illness of the counsel, and magnanimity commands fairness should be shown.
Court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control.

Headnote:(a) Fair trial – An insegregable facet of Article 21, Constitution of India – Fair trial means a trial conducted in such a manner which would totally ostracise injustice, prejudice, dishonesty and favouritism – It would include speedy trial – Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society – Court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. (Para 21, 22, 23)

       (1979) 4 SCC 167; (1981) 3 SCC 191; (2012) 4 SCC 516; (2014) 2 SCC 401; (2015) 8 SCC 787; (2010) 6 SCC 1; (1999) 8 SCC 715 – Relied upon

       1972 Cri LJ 1485 – Referred

       (b) 13Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 311 – Court has wide discretion if fresh evidence is essential to be obtained to the just decision of the case – Recall of a witness cannot be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience – Change of counsel cannot be a ground for recall. (Para 33)

       AIR 1991 SC 1346; (1999) 6 SCC 110; (2006) 7 SCC 529; (2013) 14 SCC 461 – Relied upon

       (1978) 2 SCC 518; (1963) 2 SCJ 204; AIR 1968 SC 178 – Referred

       © Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 311 – Criminal trial should proceed in accordance with section 309 – Without unwanted delay – Recall of witnesses cannot be allowed on grounds of accused persons being in custody, prosecution having been allowed to recall some of its witnesses earlier, illness of the counsel, and magnanimity commands fairness should be shown – Criminal justice is not accused-centric – Balance has to be struck between interests of the accused, the victim and the society – Concept of fair trial cannot be stretched limitlessly. (Para 37, 38)

       (2015) 3 SCC 220; (2013) 7 SCC 108 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       On 18.07.2012 about 7 p.m. the accused persons being armed with door beams and shockers went upstairs inside M1 room of the Manesar Factory of Maruti Suzuki Limited, smashed the glass walls of the conference room and threw chairs and table tops towards the management officials, surrounded the conference hall from all sides and blocked both the staircases and gave threats of doing away with the lives of the officials present over there. All kind of attempts were made to burn alive the officials of the management. During this pandemonium, the entire office was set on fire by the accused persons and the effort by the officials to escape became an exercise in futility as the accused persons had blocked the staircases. The police officials who arrived at the spot to control the situation were assaulted by the workers and they were obstructed from going upstairs to save the officials. Despite the obstruction, the officials were saved by the police and the fire was brought under control by the fire brigade.

       In the incident, Mr. Avnish Dev, General Manager, Human Resources of the Company was burnt alive.

       The police filed charge sheet against 148 workers in respect of various offences before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter to the court of session and during trial the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 452/ 302/ 307/ 436/ 323/ 332/ 353/ 427/ 114/ 201/ 120B/ 34/ 325/ 381 & 382 IPC.

       The evidence of the prosecution commenced in August, 2013 and was concluded on 02.03.2015. Recording of statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC was concluded by 13.04.2015. After the statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, the defence adduced its evidence by examining number of witnesses.

       On 13.02.2015, Salil Bihari Lal, PW-8, was recalled for further examination and on 20.02.2015, DSP Om Prakash, PW-99, was recalled. On the same day, the prosecution concluded its evidence.

       On 30.11.2015, two petitions under Section 311 CrPC were filed by different accused persons for recalling prosecution witnesses.

       The trial Judge dismissed the applications.

       The High Court allowed the petitions u/s 482 and set aside the impugned orders.

       Finding of the Court:

       Concept of fair trial cannot be stretched limitlessly.

       Recall of witnesses cannot be allowed on grounds of accused persons being in custody, prosecution having been allowed to recall some of its witnesses earlier, illness of the counsel, and magnanimity commands fairness should be shown.

       Result: Appeals allowed.