Important Point – Section 311 Cr.P.C. clearly envisages that Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of case.

1. Woes of a hapless acid victim in this case are disheartening. Her cry for justice espoused by sibling (brother) seeks attention of the Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction in the matter.

2. In this misc. petition, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 8th of April 2015, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jaisalmer (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). By the order impugned, learned trial Court has declined the joint prayer of petitioner and prosecution to recall victim Ms. Sita for recording her statement by rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

3. Ritualistic capitulation of the facts is that petitioner-complainant filed a complaint against second and third respondents castigating them for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint aforesaid eventually culminated into FIR No. 56/2012, registered at Police Station Karda, District Jalore. In the complaint, petitioner has inter-alia alleged that his sister Ms. Sita entered into matrimony two years back. The complaint also unfurls that marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals with giving requisite gifts and sufficient dowry to the groom family. As emerges out from the complaint, marital bliss between the spouses eclipsed in a short span of time and soon after marriage serious acrimony developed between couple and the family members of groom. Hurling insinuations against the respondents of subjecting Ms. Sita to cruelty and harassment for unlawful demand of property or valuable security, the petitioner has narrated in the complaint that all sincere attempts made at the behest of his family to streamline the matrimonial relations between spouses went in vain.

4. Castigating respondents for their stubborn and recalcitrant posture, it is also highlighted in the complaint that ill-treatment to Ms. Sita continued by them unabatedly. Later part of the complaint refers to receipt of information by complainant from family members of the respondents about ill-health of Ms. Sita and her hospitalization. While showing his anguish and astonishment on reaching the hospital, complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint that his sister was in a critical condition inasmuch as she was unable to speak properly. Attributing criminal delinquency to the accused respondents for aforesaid offences, the petitioner in the complaint craved for appropriate action against them.

5. Culmination of complaint into FIR facilitated investigation in the matter. During investigation, victim Ms. Sita was thoroughly examined by Gastroenterologist & ENT Department of Medical College, Jodhpur. Subsequently, all papers relating to treatment of the victim and aforesaid reports of Gastroenterologist & ENT Department were placed before duly constituted Medical Board by the order of Principal Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jalore. The Medical Board, in its report dated 24th of August 2012, opined in clear and unequivocal terms that internal organs of victim damaged due to corrosive (acid burn) entered through neck, i.e. orally. The Board further gave its clear opinion that ‘corrosive (acid burn) of victim Ms. Sita is dangerous to her life’. Thus, in these circumstances the police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the respondents for aforesaid offences.

6. When learned trial Court summoned victim Ms. Sita for recording her statement, she was brought before the Court on stretcher and was unable to speak. It is in such compelling circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor made a request to give up her as prosecution witness and counsel for the petitioner also agreed to that suggestion of the Public Prosecutor. Subsequently, statements of other prosecution witnesses are recorded. With progression in trial, victim Ms. Sita’s condition improved slightly and partially she came out of the trauma, hallucinations and psychological disability. Therefore, when the trial was in vouge, realizin