The court affirmed that additional documents can be submitted post charge sheet with permission, and summoning additional witnesses is permissible for just decision under Section 311 CrPC.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

By this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2022 and 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Southwest Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2020 under Section 376/506 IPC by which orders the trial court had taken into record the FSL report submitted by the prosecution and also allowed summoning of additional witness on the basis of an application under Section 311 CrPC.

1. The brief fact of the case is that on 02.04.2011, a written FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that the petitioner herein had sexually assaulted his daughter for last one month and also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the matter to anyone. On the basis of the said FIR, Mawkyrwat PS Case No. 6(4)2011 was registered and matter was investigated into by the police. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 376/506 IPC was filed against the petitioner and thereafter matter was taken up for trial as Sessions Case No. 34 of 2020 under Section 376/506 IPC. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and examination of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC, the matter was placed for final argument and at that stage on 29.06.2022, the Investigating Officer submitted the copy of original FSL report which was taken on record. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 CrPC was filed by the prosecution on 03.08.2022 for summoning the Scientific Officer, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam for proving the FSL report. The learned trial court vide order dated 06.12.2023 allowed the said application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has put a challenge to the order dated 29.06.2022 and 06.12.2023 of the trial court.

2. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the witness who has been sought to be summoned does not appear in the list of prosecution witness provided with the charge sheet filed in the case. He further submits that even the order by which the learned trial court had taken into record the FSL report is totally wrong in view of the fact that the mandate of law as prescribed in Section 173(5) and Section 173(8) CrPC has been overlooked by the learned trial court. He contends that filing of document by the prosecution at the belated stage of trial is not contemplated in law and the only way of taking into record any fresh document can only be by way of a supplementary chargesheet which requires adherence to the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC. He submits that the learned trial court has totally ignored the settled provisions of law and proceeded mechanically to allow the application under Section 311 CrPC without recording any valid cause or reason. He also contends that it is not permissible to summon any additional witness at the final stage of the trial and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of High Court of Chattisgarh in CRA No. 407 of 2011 and High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2249 of 2016 to impress upon the Court about the stage of permissibility of filing of supplementary chargesheet in a criminal case.

3. On the other hand, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing for the State respondents contends that submission of the FSL report by the prosecution at a later stage does not amount to filing of a supplementary chargesheet in the matter. He submits that it is only submission of additional document which was done by taking prior permission by the trial court. The learned AAG draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 and submits that at the stage of filing of the charg