IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the trial judge to ensure the just determination of the case and the importance of following the legal provisions for admitting electronic evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 470 of 2015 dated 7th October, 2015 under Sections 448/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case police submitted charge-sheet against the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and they are now facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Serampur in Sessions Trial No. 03 (07) of 2017. At the stage of trial a petition under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Serampore. The said petition having been rejected vide order dated 16th November, 2022, the petitioner has assailed the said order before this Court in revision.

2. The defacto complainant lodged a written complaint before the inspector-in-charge Serampore P.S. stating, inter-alia, that on 4th October, 2015 the father-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of the petitioner’s son trespassed into the house of the petitioner and committed robbery in respect of household goods. At the time of departure they sprinkled kerosene oil over the body of the wife of the defacto complainant and set her in fire. In order to save his mother, son of the defacto complainant caught hold of her and he also received burn injury. The injured wife and the son of the defacto complainant were admitted to Paramount Health Care and the doctor opined that the wife of the defacto complainant received 60% burn injury while his son received 25% burn injury. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered Serampore P.S. Case No. 470 of 2015 dated 7th October, 2015 under Sections 448/307/34 of the IPC against the private opposite parties. Be it noted here that wife of the defacto complaint subsequently succumbed to her injuries and Section 302 of the IPC was added against the accused persons. Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 448/34 with added Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons.

3. After filing of the charge-sheet the case was committed to the Court of Session. Trial of the case was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Serampore. On 9th November, 2021, the accused persons filed a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the said petition was allowed. The petitioner subsequently challenged the said order dated 9th November, 2021 in this Court by filing a revision under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and a Co-ordinate Bench rejected the order dated 9th November, 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in CRR No. 2410 of 2021. It is pertinent to record the relevant portion of the order passed in CRR 2410 of 2021 dated 10th December, 2021 which is reproduced below:

“Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed that in case the learned counsel appearing for the accused/defense is interested to recall any witness and the Court thinks that the same is warranted for the ends of justice, in that case specific issue/questions/omissions which will prejudice the accused must be brought to the notice of the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for considering the same.

The learned trial court is directed to adhere to the principles set out in the matter of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 461 and thereafter consider the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Needless to state that I have not gone into the merits of the case and as to whether the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required for the ends of justice but this court has taken a decision in the manner in which section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed against the norms as has been pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

As in spite of service, none appears on behalf of the opposite parties, I am not inclined to grant any further adjournment. The learned advocate for the accused person would file before the learned trial