2010 Supreme(Raj) 1622
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.N.Bhandari, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Chanchal Singh and Others - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2805 of 2009.
Decided On : 21-07-2010
Advocates:
For the U.O.I.: Laxman Madnani, Special Pubic Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:Anil Upman, Advocate.
An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to overcome the arguments already completed by the prosecution or to delay the proceedings.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 311 - APPLICATION FOR SUMMONING ADDITIONAL WITNESS - REJECTION - JUSTIFICATION:
Fact of the Case:
The accused, after completion of prosecution evidence and being called for statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., closed their defense evidence on 24.9.2009. The matter was kept for final hearing, and the prosecution completed its arguments on 12.10.2009, submitting written arguments on 15.10.2009. On 7.11.2009, the accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon the Principal of the school as a witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the accused had already been given ample opportunities to lead defense evidence and had closed their defense on their own request. The court also noted that the attendance register, which the accused sought to produce through the Principal, had already been summoned and marked as an exhibit during the examination of another witness.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was maintainable after the accused had closed their defense evidence and the prosecution had completed its arguments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the purpose of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to allow the court to summon additional witnesses in the interest of justice, but it cannot be used to overcome the arguments already completed by the prosecution or to delay the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2009, and directed the trial court to hear the arguments finally and complete the proceedings as directed earlier.
JUDGMENT
1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2009, this revision petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant - Union of India submits that after completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was called for his statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The matter was thereafter kept for defence evidence. On 8.9.2009, 11.9.2009 and thereafter on 16.9.2009 time prayed for was granted for defence evidence. On 24.9.2009, defence evidence was closed on the prayer of accused non-petitioners. The matter was thereafter kept for final hearing. On 12.10.2009, the matter was heard and prosecution side completed its arguments, but defence prayed for time to argue the matter. On 15.10.2009, prosecution submitted their written arguments as they had completed their arguments on 12.10.2009 itself, the matter was thereafter deferred to 27.10.2009 followed by another date i.e. 4.11.2009. This was at the Instance of accused. On 7.11.2009 an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed with a request that Principal of the School may be called along with attendance register as P.W.7 - Surendra Singh Rathore while disposing statements admitted that he was on duty in the school from 6.00 A.M. to 4.00 PM. The school is at the distance of 25 km. from the place of occurrence, thus exists no justification of presence of PW.7 at the place of occurrence. The Court below casually allowed the application ignoring the fact that attendance register was earlier called during the course of examination of PW.7 - Surendra Singh Rathore, which was marked as Ex.D-2. The matter was thereafter deferred from time to time and after conclusion of hearing of the prosecution side, there was no occasion to accept the application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Anil Upman, on the other hand, opposed the petition and submits that application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. was rightly .allowed by the Court below. There would be no harm, if the statement of Principal of the school is recorded, that too, in the given circumstances. P.W7 - Surendra Singh Rathore was present at the place of occurrence during the duty hours between 6.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. In view of aforesaid and for the ends of justice, application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. was allowed by the Court below. This is a case where minimum imprisonment is of ten years, thus looking to aforesaid and gravity therein, if chance of defence evidence has been given to non-petitioners, interference in such order may not be made by this Court. To substantiate his argument, reference of judgment in the case of Ajay Nahta v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1259 has been given.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case carefully.
5. It is not in dispute that after giving chance to lead defence evidence on many occasions, it was closed at the instance of the accused. Prior to it, three chances were given to lead defence evidence. The matter was deferred for final hearing. The prosecution completed its arguments on 12.10.2009 followed by submission of written arguments on 15.10.2009. The matter was yet deferred on two further dates for completion of arguments by defence side. On 7.11.2009, an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. was moved.
6. Perusal of the application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. and the record shows that no ground is made out to entertain the application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. The Court below ignored the fact that so far as arguments of the prosecution side is concerned, it has already been completed, thus application under Section 311 of Cr.PC. cannot be allowed to overcome from the arguments already completed by the prosecution. It is not the stage where application under Section 311 of.Cr.PC. can be entertained.
7. I further find that while the statements of PW.7 - Surendra Singh Rathore were recorded, attendance register was s
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
