The rejection of an application to summon additional witnesses based solely on delay is improper, especially in serious cases where the witnesses are crucial for a just decision.

(JUDGMENT & ORDER)

By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner-State has challenged the impugned order dated 25-07-2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2020 (G.R Case No. 187 of 2011) by the learned Sessions Judge, South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the prosecution for summoning and examination of additional witnesses was rejected.

1. The brief fact of the case is that an FIR dated 23-10-2011 was lodged by Smti Prialdoris Mawlein before the Officer-in-Charge Nongstoin Police Station alleging that on 23-10-2011, at about 1.30 AM, the respondent herein had brutally murdered one Shri. Komli Mawlein Shianglang at a coal quarry by using a firewood while the victim was asleep, and after committing the crime, the respondent fled away from the spot. On the basis of the said FIR, the Nongstoin PS Case No. 145 (10) 2011 under Section 302 IPC was registered by the police. The case was later transferred to Ranikor PS and registered as Ranikor PS Case No. 47 (10) 2011 under Section 302 IPC as the place of occurrence was under jurisdiction of the Ranikor Police Station. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the matter against the respondent and by order dated 21-01-2016, the learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against him. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses and they were discharged after examination-in-chief and cross- examination. After completion of recording of statement of the respondent (accused) under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 17-04-2023 before the Trial Court for calling 5(five) additional witnesses as their evidence would be vital for the just decision of the case. A show-cause reply dated 16-05-2023 was filed on behalf of the respondent against the said application. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 25-07-2023 rejected the application of the prosecution on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred this criminal petition before this Court.

2. Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing for the petitioner, submits that the rejection of the application for calling of additional witnesses by the Trial Court on the ground of delay is against the settled propositions of law. He submits that the learned Trail Court has failed to realize the gravity of the offence involved in the matter and also the relevance and importance of the witnesses sought to be called as additional witnesses by the prosecution. He submits that the additional witnesses named in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. include eyewitnesses, seizure witnesses and the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of the accused and, hence, are very vital witnesses for unearthing the truth in the matter. He submits that the learned Trial Court without realizing the importance of the testimony of such witnesses, has passed the impugned order mechanically only on the ground of delay. The learned AAG contends that the prolonged pendency or the age of a case cannot be sole decisive of the matter when the offence involved is grave in nature and a prayer is made for examination of material witnesses. He submits that though delay is not desirable in a criminal trial, the duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. He submits that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the importance of examination of the additional witnesses named in the application and rejected the same without applying its judicious mind. In support of his argument, the learned AAG has places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203, Manju Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and Another and prays for quashing of the impugned order and also for allowing