The power of a court to summon additional witnesses is an enabling provision to ensure a just decision. An inadvertent omission to include a witness in the initial list, when the underlying documents are already on record, allows the court to permit such evidence to ensure truth-seeking without prejudicing the accused.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the first accused in S.C. No. 496 of 2020 on the file of the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode (“Trial Court” for short), which arises from Crime No. 189 of 2011 registered by the Kodanchery Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 475, 302 and 201 r/w S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 2 r/w S.6(2) of the Poisons Act, 1919.

2. The petitioner contends that the charge sheet in the crime was filed as early as on 01.01.2020. Although she had preferred an application for discharge, the same was dismissed. The trial in the case commenced on 06.03.2023. The prosecution has thus far examined Pws.1 to 132 and marked Exts.P1 to P285 in evidence. At the stage when the case stood posted for the examination of CW249, the prosecution filed Annexure-A1 application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short), (corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to summon and examine Smt. Remya K.K., Assistant Director (Documents), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur, as an additional witness and to mark the Forensic Science Laboratory Reports bearing Nos.As-51/2019 to As-54/2019. Though the petitioner filed objections to the said application, by Annexure-A2 order, the Trial Court allowed the application and issued summons to the proposed witness. According to the petitioner, the prosecution's attempt is to fill the lacunae in the case, that too at the fag-end of the prosecution evidence. It is contended that, neither the details of the disputed documents nor the fact that the documents had been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’ for brevity), nor that the reports were awaited, has been disclosed in the charge sheet. The impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in law

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the application came as a total surprise to the defence. He submits that the charge sheet does not state anything about the disputed documents, their transmission to the FSL, or the receipt of the FSL reports. The application, filed after the examination of several witnesses, is nothing but an attempt to cure the fundamental defects in the prosecution case. It is further argued that the prosecution had sufficient opportunity to produce the witness and documents before the commencement of the trial and that the belated attempt to introduce an additional witness casts serious doubt upon the authenticity and credibility of both the witness and the documents sought to be proved. If the proposed witness is examined, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and undermine her right to a fair trial.

5. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the petition. He submits that the Investigating Officer had, on 11.12.2019, moved the committal court seeking permission to forward the relevant documents to the FSL, and that the application was allowed. As the statutory period for filing the charge sheet was about to expire, the same was filed before receipt of the FSL reports. It is further submitted that the forwarding of the documents to the laboratory is specifically reflected in the charge sheet. The reports were subsequently sent