Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Hemant Gupta, C.J. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Khoob Singh v. State of M. P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26900 of 2017; Decided on 8.3.2018
Bhupendra Kumar Shukla for petitioner; Ms. Namrata Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 311 -- application can be filed at any stage of trial -- even after conclusion of argument as trial is complete only after judgment is announced.
A learned Single Bench of this Court on 3rd January, 2018 has referred the following questions for the opinion of the Larger Bench :
"(i) Whether recalling of witness for re-examination or calling of a witness for examination can be permitted under section 311 CrPC after the arguments are over and before the pronouncement of judgment?
(ii) Whether the view expressed in the case of "Imrat Singh v. State of M. P. (2015) CriLJ 3473", is in accordance with the provisions of section 311 of the CrPC?" [Para 1
Held : An application under section 311 of the Code can be filed at any stage of trial even after conclusion of the argument as the trial is complete only after the judgment is announced. section 353 of the Code contemplates that the judgment in every trial shall be pronounced in an open Court immediately after termination of the trial. Though the recording of the witnesses may be complete but the trial concludes only after pronouncement of the judgment. 2015 CrLJ 3473 overruled. 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, (1999)6 SCC 110, AIR 2004 SC 3114, (2011)8 SCC 136, (2013)5 SCC 741, (2013)14 SCC 461, (2016)2 SCC 402, (2017)9 SCC 340, (2014)13 SCC 59, (2015)9 SCC 588 followed. Criminal Appeal No. 2615 of 2005 decided on 7.9.2017 referred to. 1998 CrLJ 950 and 1985 CrLJ 1288 held per incuriam.
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 234 and 235 -- it is judgment in terms of S. 235 which concludes the trial, not hearing of arguments. [Para 10
(3) Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S.4 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.363, 366A, 376A and 302 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 173 and 311 -- heinous crime -- technicality or lapse of prosecution in not citing relevant witnesses or mistake of public prosecutor in not proving relevant evidence -- will not bar jurisdiction of Court under section 311, CrPC. [Para 20
(4) Criminal Trial -- purpose -- is orderly society -- to find out truth, summoning of witnesses cannot be said to be unjustified -- petitioner would have complete opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. [Para 21
(5) Criminal Trial -- failure of prosecution to produce relevant evidence during course of trial -- is a case of oversight which cannot be stated to be irreparable lacuna -- lapse in prosecution cannot be used to defeat cause of justice. (2014) 13 SCC 59 followed. [Para 21
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 311 && fopkj.k ds fdlh Hkh izØe ij vkonsu Qkby fd;k tk ldrk gS && rdZ lekIr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh D;ksafd fopkj.k fu.kZ; ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ gh iw.kZ gksrk gSa
bl U;k;ky; ds ,d fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k us o`gÙkj U;k;ihB dh jk; ds fy, 3 tuojh] 2018 dks fuEufyf[kr iz'u fufnZ"V fd, gSa %
ß¼1½ D;k rdZ iw.kZ gks tksus ds i'pkr~ rFkk fu.kZ; lquk, tkus ds iwoZ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 311 ds v/khu iqu% ijh{kk ds fy, lk{kh dks cqykus tkus vFkok ijh{kk ds fy, lk{kh dks cqyk, tkus dh vuqKk nh tk ldrh gS \
¼2½ D;k ßbejr flag fo- e-iz- jkT; ¼2015½ lhvkj ,y ts 3473Þ ds ekeys esa vfHkO;ä n`f"Vdks.k naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj gS\Þ ¼iSjk 1
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lafgrk dh /kkjk 311 ds v/khu vkosnu] rdZ lekIr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh] fopkj.k ds fdlh Hkh izØe ij Qkby fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd fopkj.k fu.kZ; ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ gh iw.kZ gksrk gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 353 esa vuq/;kr gS fd izR;sd fopkj.k esa fu.kZ; fopkj.k [kRe gksus ds i'pkr~ rqjar lquk;k tk,xkA Hkys gh lk{khx.k dk vfHkys[ku iw.kZ gks x;k gks ijarq fopkj.k fu.kZ; lquk, tkus ds i'pkr~ gh lekIr gksrk gSA 2015 lhvkj ,y ts 3473 myVk x;kA 1991 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 271] ¼1999½6 ,l lh lh 110 ,l lh lh] , vkb vkj 2004 3114] ¼2011½8 ,l lh lh 136] ¼2013½5 ,l lh lh 741] ¼2013½14 ,l lh lh 461] ¼2016½2 ,l lh lh 402] ¼2017½9 ,l lh lh 340] ¼2014½13 ,l lh lh 59] ¼2015½9 ,l lh lh 588 vuqlfjrA nkafMd vihy Ø- 2615 lu~ 2005 fu.khZr fnukad 7-9-2017 fufnZ"VA 1998 lhvkj ,y ts 950 rFkk 1985 lhvkj ,y ts 1288 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¼iSjk 8] 9 ,oa 22
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 234 rFkk 235 && /kkjk 235 ds fucaèkkuqlkj fu.kZ; ls fopkj.k lekIr gksrk gS] rdZ ds Jo.k ls ughaA ¼iSjk 10
¼3½ ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 && /kkjk 4 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 363] 366d] 376d rFkk 302 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 173 rFkk 311 &&t?kU; vijk/k && rduhdh ckr vFkok lqlaxr lk{khx.k dk mYys[k ugha djus dh vfHk;kstui{k dh pwd vFkok lqlaxr lk{; ugha nsus dh yksd vfHk;kstd dh xyrh && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 311 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ugha gksxhA ¼iSjk 20
¼4½ nkafMd fopkj.k && iz;kstu && O;ofLFkr lekt gS && lR; dk irk yxkus ds fy, lk{khx.k dks cqykuk vU;k;iw.kZ ugha dgk tk ldrk && ;kph dks lk{khx.k dh izfrijh{kk djus dk iw.kZ volj izkIr gksxkA ¼iSjk 21
¼5½ nkafMd fopkj.k && fopkj.k ds nkSjku lqlaxr lk{; is'k djus esa vfHk;kstu i{k dh foQyrk && pwd dk ekeyk gS ftls vlq/kk;Z deh ugha dgk tk ldrk && vfHk;kstu i{kdFku esa xyrh dk U;k;fgr foQy djus ds fy, mi;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2014½13 ,l lh lh 59 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21
Gupta, C.J. -- 1. A learned Single Bench of this Court on 3rd January, 2018 has referred the following questions for the opinion of the Larger Bench :
“(i) Whether recalling of witness for re-examination or calling of a witness for examination can be permitted under section 311 CrPC after the arguments are over and before the pronouncement of judgment?
(ii) Whether the view expressed in the case of “Imrat Singh v. State of M.P. (2015) CrLJ 3473", is in accordance with the provisions of section 311 of the CrPC?”
2. The said question arises out of the fact that in a trial for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366A, 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the Act”), the learned trial Court passed an order on 6th October, 2017 permitting the reexamination of three witnesses, namely, Arjun Singh (PW9), Dr. Sunil Parashar (PW10) and N.P. Patel (PW16) and also ordered examination of constable Neeraj Rawat, Sainik Ramesh, Constable Tej Singh, Bharat, Hakum, Charan, Bhagwan, Santosh Rai and Halka Patwari Dharmendra and one Vandana alias Simma. It is the said order, which has been challenged before this Court relying upon a Single Bench decision of Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Imrat Singh and others v. State of M.P. (2015 CriLJ 3473) inter alia contending that after the case is fixed for argument, the application for recall of the witnesses is not maintainable.
3. The learned Single Bench hearing the petition, had reservation about the judgment rendered in the case of Imrat Singh (supra), and therefore, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench.
4. In Imrat Singh’s case (supra), after final arguments were heard and case was posted for judgment by the trial Court, an application was filed by the prosecution for recall of Dr. Anoop Verma to clarify as to whether bone of left leg or right leg was fractured. In the earlier evidence, he had deposed that the fracture was found in the left leg but as per the Xray, it was right leg which was found to be fractured. The learned Trial Court permitted the doctor to be re-examined but the learned Single Bench relied upon a Single Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported as 1998 Cr LJ 950 (Cheeku Singh v. State of Rajasthan) held that the order passed by the trial Court was contrary to law, having been passed on the date when the case was fixed for judgment. Reference was also made to section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short “the Code”).
5. In Cheeku Singh’s case (supra), the learned Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that section 311 of the Code is in two parts. Under the first part, any Court, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the 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. Under the second part, the Court is duty bound to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In the said case, the name of one of the witness was not mentioned in the list of witnesses, therefore, it was found that the public prosecutor has not pointed out any special circumstances, which may justify that the summoning of such witness for examination for evidence was essential to the just decision of the case within the meaning of second part of section 311 of the Code.
6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to another order passed by a learned Single Bench of Kerala High Court reported as 1985 CrLJ 1288 (Chandran v. State of Kerala) wherein recall of an Investigating Officer for production and proof of vital record having relevance to the guilt of the accused and that too after conclusion of the evidence, was found to have resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the
