Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.
Ranjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 376 of 2019
Decided On : 15-03-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Charanjeet Kaur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder., Mr. Siddartha Sah, learned.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary authority of the trial court to summon, examine, or recall witnesses under Section 311 and 233(3) of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and valid reasons to exercise such powers.
Headnote:
RECALL - Criminal Trial - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. - 311, 331(2), 233(3) Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the relevance of Section 311 and 233(3) of Cr.P.C. in the context of recalling witnesses and re-examining them. The judgment highlighted the discretionary authority of the court to summon, examine, or recall witnesses and emphasized the need for strong and valid reasons to exercise such powers.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the rejection of his applications seeking recall of witnesses and summoning of records by the trial court. The trial court rejected the applications citing that the evidence sought was irrelevant in a criminal trial and that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications as the evidence sought was deemed irrelevant in a criminal trial and the applicant had already cross-examined the witnesses. The court emphasized the discretionary authority of the trial court to summon, examine, or recall witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance of the evidence sought by the applicant, the discretionary authority of the trial court to recall witnesses, and the need for strong and valid reasons to exercise such powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power under Section 311 and 233(3) of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only for strong and valid reasons. It highlighted the need for the evidence to be essential to the just decision of the case and cautioned against using the provisions to fill lacunae or cause prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously.
MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.
1. Applicant is facing trial with other co-accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. pending in the court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, applicant moved five applications, out of which two applications were allowed, namely, Application No. 354Kha and Application No. 360Kha whereby applicant had sought recall of constable Shyam Sunder (P.W.-4) for cross examination and had also sought summoning of record of Amrit Hospital, Rudrapur where applicant and another co-accused Surjeet Singh were allegedly treated for the injuries sustained by them.
2. By means of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has challenged rejection of his three applications i.e. Paper Nos. 346 Kha, 348Kha and 349Kha by learned trial Court i.e. IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 01.03.2019.
3. By Paper No. 349Kha, applicant made a prayer that the Surevey Amin, who submitted survey report after measuring Khet No. 144/1, Khata No. 99 on applicant’s request be summoned as defence witness along with all relevant revenue record. Paper No. 348Kha is an application under Section 311 read with 231 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby applicant made a prayer to recall two prosecution witnesses for additional cross examination, namely, Ballistic Expert Mr. B.P. Singh, Senior Scientific Officer, CFNL, Chandigarh (P.W.-10) and Dr. Harsh Singh Airy (P.W.-12), presently posted as Joint Director, District Hospital Champawat, who examined the injuries sustained by the applicant and another co-accused Surjit Singh. By paper no. 346 Kha, applicant had sought permission to file three documents on record, namely, (a) photocopy of the application made by Ranjit Singh (applicant herein) to Assistant Collector, Sitarganj for measurement of land; (b) photocopy of the report submitted by Survey Amin to the Assistant Collector, pursuant to said application and (c) photocopy of the revenue map of the land.
4. These three applications were rejected by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 01.03.2019. Application Paper Nos. 346 Kha & 349 Kha were rejected by learned trial Court by holding that it is a criminal trial in which civil rights are not adjudicated, therefore, the revenue records, report of Survey Amin and the application by Ranjit Singh (applicant herein) to Assistant Collector for measurement of the land are wholly irrelevant in a criminal trial. It was further observed by learned trial Court that for the same reason, the application for summoning the Survey Amin, who measured the land, cannot be allowed.
5. The application made under Section 311 read with Section 331 (2) Cr.P.C. was rejected by holding that Mr. B.P. Singh, Ballistic Expert (P.W.-10) and Dr. Harsh Singh Airy (P.W.-12) have already been cross examined; thereafter, application made by the defence for summoning these two witnesses as defence witness was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2019 and further that this Court vide order dated 18.09.2018 has issued direction to conclude the trial within six months, copy of the said order was submitted before trial Court on 25.09.2018, therefore the trial has to be concluded on or before 25.03.2019.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned trial Court. Learned Trial Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the three applications, namely, Application Nos. 349 Kha, 348 Kha and 346 Kha. Learned trial Court was justified in rejecting applications Paper No. 349 Kha and 346 Kha, as the report of the Survey Amin for measurement of agricultural land has no relevance in a criminal trial, although it may be relevant before a civil or a revenue Court where question of title/possession over the land is in
