The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an order challenging the rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application. The court held that summoning the victim after a nine-month delay would cause prejudice and the proposed questions were not germane.
The petition challenging the impugned order is dismissed at the motion stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 346 of 2023
Xyz Nill
---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Chandani Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
| For Petitioner | : | Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate appears |
|---|---|---|
| on behalf of Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, | ||
| Advocate | ||
| For State | : | Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.07.2023
-2-
was sick, therefore, she could not be examined properly. Neither in the order-sheet nor in the deposition of the victim, it is recorded or stated that the victim was ill on that day. From the evidence of victim, it appears that she did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile and the victim was not put to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused.
" 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. —Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this 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; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
7 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2019 (14 ) SCC 328 has dealt with the scope of Section 311 of CrPC and has held in paras-10, 11 & 12 as under:
“10. The first part of this Section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.
11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for reexamination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.
12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for nonexamination of the witness earlier is not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision.”
-4-
should not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. In the case in hand, PW-1 was examined and cross-examined on 11.10.2022 and summoning the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice. From deposition of PW-1, it appears that she was put t o lengthy cross- examination by counsel for the petitioner, where most of the questions were asked. Right to cross-examination is a part of the right to fair trial with every person, but the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case of prosecution and the questions which are proposed by the petitioner are not going to the root of the case and the same will not affect the fair trial. The evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness must be germane to the issue involved which is lacking in this case. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner and there is no scope for interference in the order passed by the learned Court below.
9. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed at the motion stage.
Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Rekha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling back a witness examined earlier should be allowed on grounds of illness after an unexplained delay of nine months.
Whether summoning a witness at a belated stage would cause prejudice to the prosecution causing ends of justice to be violated.
Whether the proposed questions by the petitioner are germane to the issues in the case affecting fair trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶22
2019 (14) SCC 328 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Xyz Nill
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
