Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Babulal Singaria – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10710/2022
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Witnesses - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 332, 353, 186 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its discretionary authority, as well as the scope and ambit of the section as interpreted by various judgments. The court emphasized the need for summoning witnesses for just decision of the case and the exercise of judicial discretion in doing so. The judgment cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application for summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court. The case involved an incident in 2001 where the petitioner was charged with offenses under Sections 332, 353, and 186 of the IPC. The petitioner sought to summon twenty witnesses dropped by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dropped witnesses were not essential for a just decision as they were not present at the spot and were tale-tell witnesses. The court emphasized the discretionary authority of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the need for strong and valid reasons to summon witnesses. It held that the Trial Court did not commit an error in rejecting the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary authority of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the need for strong and valid reasons to summon witnesses. It held that summoning of tale-tell witnesses was not necessary for the just decision of the case.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the trial, in line with directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court for pending cases against former legislators.
ORDER
1. By way of filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ’Cr.P.C.’) the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Cases), Ajmer, (for short ’the Trial Court’) in case no. 1410/2009 CCIS No. 4789/2016, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning twenty witnesses, has been rejected.
2. The counsel for the petitioner sought time on 12.12.2022 to submit copy of entire charge-sheet on the record and accordingly the same was filed on the record of this matter for perusal of the statements of the witnesses and other evidence.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2001, First Information Report (for short ’FIR’) No. 146/2001 was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for the offences under Section 332, 353, 186 of Indian Penal Code (for short ’IPC’) by the complainant Altaf Hussain alleging therein that the meeting of Zila Satarkta Evam Jan Abhaav Abhiyog Nirakaran Samiti Zila Ajmer (District Vigilance and General Public Grievance Redressal Committee District Ajmer) started. In the said meeting Ramswaroop Choudhary Zila Pramukh Ajmer, Kayum Khan Member Legislative Assembly Masuda (for short ’MLA’), Babulal Singaria MLA Kekri, Rambabu Shubham Nominated Member, Smt. Usha Sharma Collector, Alok Tripathi Superintendent of Police Ajmer (for short ’S.P.’), Vasudev Bhatt Additional S.P. Ajmer and other public representatives and officers of the other departments were present. The S.P. Alok Tripathi was supposed to attend another meeting with higher officers to check the arrangements of the journey tour of Pakistan President General Musharraf. Hence the issue of law and order was taken first. Immediately thereafter, the MLA Kekri Babulal Singaria started raising allegations against the S.P., Alok Tripathi and raised two-three months’ old issues of the law and order. Hence he was requested to raise the relevant issues only. In the meanwhile Shri Singaria said that he has the right to raise the issues in the capacity of public representative, he slapped and assaulted Alok Tripathi and tried to manhandle him. By such act, Shri Singaria obstructed in discharge of public duties.
4. Upon this report, FIR was registered against the petitioner and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against him for the offences under Section 332, 353 and 186 IPC with list of forty-four witnesses. After framing of charges, trial commenced against the petitioner and statements of the various witnesses were recorded. The Public Prosecutor (for short ’PP’) dropped the following twenty witnesses, namely :-
(1) K.K. Sharma son of Shri Jagdish Prasad
(2) Rajpal Singh son of Shri Mohan Singh
(3) Mohan Lal son of Shri Sant Lal Koli
(4) Rambabu Shubham son of Shri Senda Lal Koli
(5) Puran Prakash Gaur son of Shri Buddhi Prakash
(6) Nirmal Kumar Sharma son of Shri K.K. Sharma
(7) Madan Lal son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Koli
(8) Gopal Singh son of Shri Mangu Singh
(9) Gangaram son of Shri Ramchandra
(10) Prabhu Singh Koli son of Shri Hiralal Koli
(11) Gopal Singh Rathore son of Shri Chandra Ji
(12) Shiv Kishan Ajmera son of Shri Bhagwan Das Ajmera
(13) Dudh Singh Chauhan son of Shri Punam Singh Chauhan
(14) Ghanshyam Singh son of Shri Chandrabhan Singh
(15) Suwalal son of Shri Ramlal Jat
(16) Ashok Tripathi son of Shri Triveni Tripathi
(17) Vineet Bansal C.O. (North) Ajmer Investigating Officer
(18) Umesh Joshi Pulice Superintendent (H.A.) CID (CB) Jaipur
(19) Prem Prakash Tank Addl. Superintendent of Police CID (CB) Range Cell, Ajmer
(20) Narendra Pratap Singh SHO Police Station Civil Lines Ajmer
During the course of trial, it was found that witnesses Sumer Singh, G.L. Sharma and Dudh Singh have already expired, hence their evidence was closed and one witness Rambabu Shubham appeared in the witness-box on 27.04.2022 but he was neither able to see nor hear, and hence he was
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary authority of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the need for strong and valid reasons to summon witnesses for just decision of the case.
The court emphasized the importance of diligence in seeking remedies and the relevance of witnesses' presence in the FIR or their statements during the investigation in considering applications under....
Trial court has ample power to summon any person as witness for just decision of case.
The court affirmed that the summoning of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and just decision.
The court ruled that prior exclusion of witnesses does not preclude their summoning later when necessary for a just trial, emphasizing the importance of witness testimony under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring that the recall of witnesses is essential for a just decision.
The court established that under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the summoning of material witnesses is vital to prevent miscarriage of justice, even at advanced stages of trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
