Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, (DHARWAD BENCH)
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Shankramma Angadi, W/o. Angadi AndanappaANGADI ANDANAPPA – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Toranagal Police Station, Now Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Bench At Dharwad – Respondent
ORDER :
(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)
Crl.P.No.101050/2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 91 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) in S.C.No.68/2010, whereas Crl.P.No.102901/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., in S.C.No.68/2010 and consequently, to allow the application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases are as under:
Crl.P.No.101050/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners/accused persons had filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., to summon the Director of Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, to produce the answer sheets of the deceased-Shilpa, who wrote in the Kannada language, and studied II PUC at Government Girls Pre-University College, Ballari, in the year 2004. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that since the
The court established that applications to summon evidence must be granted unless proven to be for vexation or delay, affirming the right to substantiate a defense with relevant documentation.
The necessity of documents for trial must be clearly stated in the application; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Sections 233(3) and 91 of Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing applications under Section 233 Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair trial, particularly in serious criminal cases.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses must be exercised judiciously to ensure justice, not to rectify prosecutorial errors post-evidence closure.
The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage of the trial and is not limited to the defense stage.
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the charge framing stage, as the necessity of documents for defense is not relevant at that point.
Point of law: Section - 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against the person accused of an offence and the said Section does not apply to the accused persons and that the Court and Police Officer is no....
The court emphasized that oversight in evidence presentation does not constitute a lacuna, and the power under Section 311 allows summoning witnesses if their evidence is essential for justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
