IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the power to permit the production of additional documents or evidence under section 311 of Cr.P.C. if it is essential for a just decision in the case.

1. Can a document that was not procured during investigation and produced along with the final report, be introduced, after the evidence is over by recourse to section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?

2. Petitioner is facing an indictment for the offences under Sections 308, 326A and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He is alleged to have attacked the victim with acid. The victim who suffered the attack became blind. After the evidence in the case was completed and when the case was posted for hearing, a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking to re-open the evidence to produce a disability certificate and to examine the doctor who issued the certificate stating that the victim has become 100% blind. By the impugned order dated 23.01.2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha allowed the said application.

3. I have heard Sri. John Sebastian Ralph, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. T.R. Renjith, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the production of evidence that came into existence after filing the final report is not permissible. The document that is sought to be produced is dated two years after the final report was filed, and such a document cannot be produced, that too, at the fag end of a trial. It was further contended that in a criminal trial, the prosecution ought to produce all the documents which they rely upon under section 173 Cr.P.C. and copies of those documents are required to be supplied under section 207 Cr.P.C. and further that under section 220 Cr.P.C. he must open his case by describing the charge and the evidence that the prosecution proposes to prove. According to the learned counsel, even the defence strategy is based upon the materials produced by the prosecution, and his right to fair trial will be prejudiced if such documents are permitted to be produced after evidence is completed.

5. Sri. T.R. Renjith, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the court's power to permit any evidence to come on record is determined by its essentiality, and therefore, the court's power to permit such recall of witnesses or reopening of evidence cannot be restricted.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. deals with trial before a court of sessions. Section 226 Cr.P.C. states that the Prosecutor shall open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and must also state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. If the accused refuses to plead guilty, the court may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing as per section 230 Cr.P.C. Under section 231 Cr.P.C. on the date fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The provisions of sections 230 and 231 Cr.P.C. referred to above, do not indicate that the issue of process for compelling the production of any document or other thing is confined to any document produced along with the final report. Similarly, the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the prosecution need not necessarily be confined to those produced along with the final report.

8. The terminology used in sections 230 and 231 of Cr.P.C. indicates that the prosecution is entitled to produce any document supporting the prosecution evidence. Though generally the documents and evidence are those that are collected during investigation, the prosecution cannot be tied down to only those documents produced along with the final report. If an important document or a witness has been omitted or was not produced, for whatever reason it may be, the prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to bring it on record as a piece of evidence in the trial.

9. In the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R.S. Pai and Another, (2002) 5 SCC 82,