The discretionary powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised judiciously and only when there are strong and valid reasons to conclude that re-examination or new evidence is needed for a just decision of the case.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 19th March, 2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Barnala. The prayer under Section 311 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for further cross-examination of ASI Gurmeet Singh, Investigating Officer (hereinafter 'I.O.') and the complainant was declined.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Harpreet Kaur, FIR No. 87, dated 9th June, 2019, under Sections 452, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala. It was stated that she was working as house-hold help. Her husband died in the year 2013. On 8th June, 2019 at about 6 P.M., Baljinder Singh @ Kaka s/o Buta Singh came near residence of complainant. Her mother-in-law who was standing in the street, objected to accused roaming in the street. The accused forcibly entered in the house of the complainant with an iron rod in his hand. He slapped the complainant and tried to molest her. When mother-inlaw of the complainant tried to rescue, the accused after hitting threw her on the ground. The accused gave blows on left leg, the front side of her right leg and on the knee of the complainant. She was taken to Community Health Centre, Dhanola from where she was referred to the Civil Hospital, Barnala.

4. During the trial, statement of I.O. was recorded wherein he stated that the site plan was prepared and a Sabal (iron rod) was recovered at the instance of the accused. In the MLR, injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, the defence posed questions to establish that there was prior enmity between the accused and the complainant. Suggestions were put that the complainant was demanding a plot of land and she in connivance with her mother in law, falsely implicated the accused.

5. The complainant in her statement supported the allegations in the FIR. In cross-examination, suggestion was made by the defence that accused was named only to extort a chunk of plot in an agricultural land.

6. The defence examined Buta Singh (father of the accused) who alleged that he had moved an application levelling allegations against the accused and the complainant. It was stated that as per the application, certain cash and ornaments were found missing from his Almirah. Later, he came to know that the complainant had enticed his son to remove ornaments and cash. It was further stated that the accused, being a drug addict, was admitted in de-addiction centre. Out of the said cash, a second hand Scooty was purchased. During investigation it transpired that ornaments were pledged. Further, that a Panchayati compromise was effected with regard to complaint of Buta Singh.

7. On the basis of the examination of Buta Singh, further cross- examination of the complainant and I.O. was sought.

8. Mr. Jimmy Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that certain new facts came to light in deposition of Buta Singh, hence there was need to further cross-examine the complainant and I.O. The contention raised is that a lenient view should be taken while dealing with the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

9. Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab defends the impugned order. The contention is that there are no new facts calling for further cross-examination.

10. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:-

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

11. Section 311