SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 1778

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Kanupriya Sinha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. M 8335 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the Appellant

The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code to summon any witness at any stage of the trial and the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.

Headnote:

Section 311 - Criminal Procedure Code - 173, 498-A, 323, 406 IPC - Summoning of witnesses - The court allowed the petitioner to examine additional witnesses, including the complainant's father, ASI, and domestic help, as their statements were deemed vital to arrive at a fair conclusion. The court emphasized the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code to summon any witness at any stage of the trial and the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to challenge the dismissal of her application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon 16 witnesses in a case involving allegations of physical assault and misappropriation of Istridhan. The trial court had dismissed the application on the grounds that a similar application had been previously filed and dismissed, and the trial was time-bound.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that some of the witnesses sought to be summoned would be relevant for a fair and just conclusion of the trial. It emphasized the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code to summon any witness at any stage of the trial and the importance of exercising discretion judiciously for a valid reason.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 of the Code, the previous dismissal of a similar application, and the time-bound nature of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure fairness for all parties involved. It emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and proper opportunities for all persons concerned and the scrupulous following of rules of procedure designed to ensure justice.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was permitted to examine the additional witnesses, including the complainant's father, ASI, and domestic help. The trial court was directed to adjourn the case to allow the petitioner to bring the witnesses, with a clear directive that no further opportunity would be given unless extreme circumstances compelled the court to adjourn the case.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 31.1.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Gurugram, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking permission to summon 16 witnesses in additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts are that an FIR No. 376 dated 23.11.2013 was got registered by the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 323/34 IPC on the allegations that the petitionercomplainant was subjected to physical assault by the accused persons mentioned therein, apart from misappropriation of Istridhan. After investigation report under Section 173 of the Code was prepared and submitted in the Court and the trial was set in motion. Respondent No.l was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC. The prosecution evidence was closed on 28.8.2019 and after that the present application was filed by the petitioner seeking to summon 16 witnesses, who would testify to the facts that there were various incidents of assaults upon the complainant and misappropriation of istridhan. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier also filed an application under Section 311 of the Code and she could have sought permission to summon these witnesses at that point of time, but she did not do so. The application earlier filed was dismissed by order dated 8.12.2018 and there was an order dated 12.9.2018 passed by this Court directing the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest by giving short adjournments.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that there are observations of the court which would reflect that "the evidence of ASI Sandeep Ahlawat and doctor of Max Hospital can be somewhat relevant as it would show the conduct of complainant after the alleged harassment" but despite the said observations the application has been dismissed. It is argued that provision of Section 311 of the Code read in its entirety would show that the Court is empowered to summon a material witness or examine a person present at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under CrPC or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined, if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the just decision of a case. It is argued that there are catena of judgments which laid down the principle regarding summoning of a witness and underline the wide powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code to summon any witness at any stage of the trial. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors 2004 (4) SCC 158 , Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State of Bihar & Anr 2013(14) SCC 461 , Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 and Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2019 decided on 16.4.2019.

4. At this stage, though notice has not been issued, appearance has been caused by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No.2, who opposes grant of another opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence by summoning additional witnesses. It is argued that similar application had already been filed and the same stood dismissed, as has been noticed by the court below.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that some of the witnesses sought to be summoned would be relevant for fair and just conclusion of the trial.

6. Admittedly, an application for additional evidence was filed under Section 311 of the Code, which stood dismissed. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as settled by the judgments, referred to above, that Section 311 of the Code empowers the Courts to call any witness or re-examine any witness at any stage of the trial but discretion to summon a witness under Section 311 of the Code must be

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top