Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Radhiya Devi @ Radhia Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Key Points: - The Court held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows evidence at any stage of trial and the court must examine whether the evidence is essential for a just decision, regardless of trial stage. (!) (!) (!) - If the court fails to verify the essentiality of the proposed evidence, the rejection is unsustainable in law; the matter should be remitted to decide essentiality and permit proof if essential. (!) (!) - The impugned orders were quashed and the case remitted to the trial court to form an opinion on essentiality and proceed accordingly, including allowing examination of witnesses if essential. (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies that the opinion on essentiality is to be formed by the trial court and that the high court did not express a definitive ruling on whether the documents are essential, leaving that open for the trial court. (!) (!) - Interim relief granted earlier was vacated in view of disposal. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of section 311 application rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions on evidence timeliness and necessity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. section 311 mandates essential evidence at any stage. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. lower courts failed to assess evidence essentiality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. remand to evaluate and allow essential evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Godda dismissed the criminal revision directed against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda did not allow the petitioner to prove vital documents in support of her case and rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view the fact that
Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. exercisable at any trial stage; court must examine if additional evidence essential for just decision, rejection merely on ground of arguments stage improper.
A revision application against an order rejecting a recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, as established by prior judgments.
The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and applications to introduce evidence cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps left by the prosecution.
The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised to arrive at a just decision and do substantial justice to establish the rule of law.
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
