IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Surender, J.
Dasari Aruna - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1633 of 2017
Decided On : 28-10-2022
FURTHER INVESTIGATION - Criminal Procedure - Sec. 482, Sec. 173(8), Sec. 311, Sec. 242(3) - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 311 and Sec. 242(3) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the power of the trial court to call for witnesses not cited by the prosecution and the need for just decision and prevention of failure of justice. The court referred to relevant case laws to support its decision, highlighting the importance of bringing valuable evidence on record and the prevention of unnecessary delay in trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for further investigation in a criminal case, alleging that material witnesses were not examined by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the power of the trial court to call for witnesses not cited by the prosecution and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition to examine the said witnesses under Sec. 311 or 242(3) of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Failure of police to examine material witnesses, refusal of the Magistrate to refer the case for further investigation, and the petitioner's remedy under Sec. 311 and Sec. 242(3) of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Sec. 311 and Sec. 242(3) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the power of the trial court to call for witnesses not cited by the prosecution and the need for just decision and prevention of failure of justice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Sec. 311 or 242(3) of Cr.P.C. to examine the said witnesses.
JUDGMENT
K.SURENDER, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking direction to the respondent Police to conduct further investigation in respect of examining the material witnesses, who filed the affidavits along with this criminal petition, in C.C.No.467/2016 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District at Rajendra Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Sudershan, for respondent State and perused the record.
3. The grievance of the petitioner who is defacto complainant in C.C.No.467/2016 is that though there are other witnesses, the police failed to examine the witnesses i.e. Smt.P.Sridevi, Sri Kandula Rama Rao and Sri Koti Reddy, who are material witnesses and have a bearing on the prosecution case.
4. Though an application under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was made, the learned Magistrate has refused to refer the case for the purpose of further investigation.
5. For examining any witnesses who are not cited as witnesses in the Memo of Evidence filed by the prosecution, the defacto complainant or the prosecution has remedy under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. and also under Sec. 242 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Either calling witnesses under Sec. 311 and also Sec. 242(3) of Cr.P.C. will not confine to the witnesses whose names are mentioned in the list of witnesses enclosed to the charge sheet.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in V.N. Patil v. K.Niranjan Kumar and others, (2021) 3 SCC 661 held that it was open for the trial Court to as well exercise powers of suo motu in summoning the witnesses whose statements ought to be recorded to sub-serve cause of justice with object of getting evidence in aid of just decision and to uphold truth.
7. The Judge of trial Court has a right to call for any witness, not called either by the prosecution or the defence and without the consent of either the prosecution or the defence, during the course of examining any witness is necessary in the interest of justice. The scope is enlarged and to meet the ends of justice a witness who was not been cited and relevant to decide an issue, the trial Court is at liberty to call for such witnesses either at the instance of prosecution or the defence under Sec. 242 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Sec. 242 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows;
" 242. Evidence for prosecution.--(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Sec. 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses:
[Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.]
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination."
9. Under Sec. 242 (2), the Magistrate on an application of the prosecution, issue summons to any of its witnesses directing them to appear or produce any document or other thing.
10. Under Sec. 242 (3) of the Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
11. The Legislature has thought it fit not to limit the witnesses who can be examined in a criminal trial only to the witnesses cited by the prosecution. All such evidence in clause (3) would mean the witnesses who are other than the witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge sheet or the complaint and when such other witnesses are necessary to be adjudicated in a criminal trial, such witnesses
V.N. Patil v. K.Niranjan Kumar and others
P. Sanjeeva Rao v. The State of A.P. 2012 (3) Crimes 64 (SC) : AIR 2012 SC 2242
The central legal point established in the judgment is the power of the trial court to call for witnesses not cited by the prosecution under Sec. 311 and Sec. 242(3) of the Cr.P.C. to ensure a just d....
The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be applied judiciously and not to fill gaps in evidence at the conclusion of trial.
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.
The power of the court to summon any person as a witness at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code should be exercised judiciously and only where the court thinks that th....
The discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.
The duty of the criminal court is to ensure administration of justice and take all steps to facilitate the production of the best possible evidence for the adjudication of the dispute in accordance w....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.