RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Manoj Kumar @ Leelu - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 77 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2023
Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Witnesses - Section 311 Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized the necessity of summoning witnesses for a just decision, highlighting the broad discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to ensure fair trial principles are upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing the summoning of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. during the final arguments stage of a trial for multiple IPC offences, arguing it was belated and prejudicial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that summoning the witnesses was essential for just adjudication and would not prejudice the petitioner, as he would have the opportunity to cross-examine them.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the summoning of witnesses at a late stage of the trial under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously to ensure a fair trial and that summoning witnesses is permissible if it is essential for a just decision.
Result: The petition and stay application are dismissed.
ORDER
1. Instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.196/2020 by which application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC before the trial Court since last nine years. Counsel submits that when the matter reached at the stage of final arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submitted an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning PW-18 Nihal Singh. However, the said application was allowed by the trial Court and the witness was summoned vide order dated 15.02.2021.
3. Counsel submits that subsequently one more application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted for summoning the witnesses Narendra Kumar, Dr. Sandesh Agarwal, Rajesh Trivedi and Jagdish Prasad along with relevant documents. Counsel submits that the said application has been allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.11.2022. Counsel submits that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the said application at this belated stage of the trial. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the summoning of the witnesses and documents are material for just decision of the case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2019 SC 1976 has held in para 15 as under:-
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Natasha Singh V. CBI (State) reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3554 has held in para 9 as under:-
Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2019 SC 1976
The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be applied judiciously and not to fill gaps in evidence at the conclusion of trial.
Power to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which falls under Chapter XXIV containing general provisions as to inquiries and trials has been held to confer a very wide power on court....
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 discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.
The court determines that the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC for summoning witnesses must be exercised judiciously; prior inconsistent evidence negates the necessity for re-examination.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.