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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”), the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed in Sessions Case No. 70/2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for examining the Headmaster of Santipur Lower Primary School, Kamrup (M) as Court witness and also for directing him to produce and to exhibit the admission register and also to produce the extract copy of the relevant page of the admission register was rejected.

3. The facts of the case is that on 12.05.2016 the informant/PW-2 lodged an FIR against the respondent No.2/accused alleging inter-alia that by way of impersonating, the accused misrepresented himself as brother of the victim and fraudulently kidnapped her. Accordingly, a case was registered being Gorchuk P.S. case No. 248/2016 under Section 419/366(A) of IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet which was against the respondent No.2/accused under Section 419/366-A/376 of IPC. Thereafter, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, framed charge under Section 366 of IPC against the petitioner and conducted the trial thereof. Thereafter, prosecution adduced 6(six) prosecution witnesses and after completion of the evidence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to examine the Headmaster of Santipur Lower Primary School, Kamrup (M) as a court witness. However, the said petition was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 20.08.2018. Situated thus, the aforesaid criminal revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Z. Alam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court in rejecting the application for examining the headmaster is palpably erroneous inasmuch as in view of the discovery of the certificate issued by the concerned school indicating the year of birth of the victim as 1999, it has become imperative to bring the said evidence on record in the interest of justice.

5. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2. fairly submits that since additional information as regards the age of the victim has come out after the closure of the evidence, it was imperative for the trial Court to allow the examination of the headmaster as sought for. In respect of the aforesaid submission, he fairly relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs Narcotic Cell, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 110

6. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent also fairly concedes that the application for examination of the headmaster who if appeared could have thrown light to the correct age of the victim, ought to have been allowed by the trial Court, which being the deciding factor of the case in hand.

7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned Counsel for both the contending parties, and also perused the material available on record.

8. Apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the application filed by the petitioner for examining the headmaster which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“2. That the petitioner is the father of the deceased victim girl, and he is the P.W. 1 of this case.

3. That the P.W. 1 was examined on 03.08.2017 and though the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 but at that time no certificate showing the date of birth of the victim girl was available with him and accordingly he could not inform this Hon’ble Court regarding the actual date of birth of the victim girl.

4. That the P.W.1/father of the deceased victim girl ther