Chander Vibhash Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

Chander Vibhash Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of along with pending applications without disturbing the Trial Court's order; copies of the documents handed over to petitioner's counsel during hearing, with liberty (per Mr. D.P. Singh's recorded submission) to move the Trial Court to admit or dispute them, one week's time granted; recording of prosecution evidence deferred by a week; copy of order sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court acted within Section 311 Cr.P.C in allowing the prosecution, at the stage of final arguments after closure of prosecution evidence, to bring on record the CDRs, Location Charts, CAFs and requisite certificates for three mobile numbers (accused, deceased, deceased's father) — i.e., whether the impugned order is perverse and impermissibly fills lacunae in the prosecution case.

Court's answer

The documents sought (pertaining to three mobile numbers already referred to in the chargesheet) do not constitute entirely new evidence but are a continuation of material already referred to during investigation; they cannot be regarded as new or additional evidence introduced for the first time at the final stage.

Ratio / Principle

The CDRs, Location Charts and CAFs constitute electronic evidence often crucial in cases built on circumstantial evidence, and could prove a vital link in establishing the sequence of events or the presence of the parties involved.

Key takeaways

Section 311 Cr.P.C vests the trial court with broad discretion to summon any person as a witness, or recall/re-examine any person already examined, at any stage of the trial, if such evidence appears essential for a just decision.ratio¶49
Closure of prosecution evidence does not impose a rigid bar on the exercise of the Section 311 Cr.P.C jurisdiction.ratio¶49
The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to prevent a failure of justice arising from inadvertent omission of valuable evidence; the provision is not confined to the benefit of the accused alone and may be invoked even if the evidence supports the prosecution; what is paramount is whether the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J., sole author) — CRL.M.C. 5139/2025 & Crl.M.As. 22266-22267/2025, disposed of 01.08.2025. Petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 against Trial Court order dated 29.07.2025 (SC No. 57453/2016, S.302 IPC case) allowing the State's Section 311 Cr.P.C application — moved 24.07.2025 as a third supplementary application, after prosecution evidence closed on 31.05.2023 and during final arguments begun 15.01.2025 — to bring on record CDRs, Location Charts, CAFs and certificates for three mobile numbers (accused, deceased, deceased's father) originally sought via Section 91 Cr.P.C notices but omitted through the earlier IO's inadvertence; earlier first Section 311 application (S.65B IEA toll-plaza certificate) had been rejected on 04.07.2025. Holdings: (i) the material is a continuation of investigation-stage references, not fresh evidence introduced for the first time; (ii) such electronic records are often crucial and a vital link in circumstantial-evidence cases; (iii) Section 311 confers broad discretion exercisable at any stage — closure of prosecution evidence is no rigid bar, the provision serves accused and prosecution alike, and essentiality for a just decision is paramount; hence summoning the Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance Nodal Officers and IO Ashu Girotra is a justified and appropriate exercise of judicial discretion (relying on Anees v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 INSC 368). Copies of the documents were handed to petitioner's counsel, who may ask the Trial Court to admit or dispute them; prosecution evidence deferred by one week; petition disposed of along with pending applications.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Trial Court order dated 29 July 2025 in Sessions Case SC No. 57453/2016 (S.302 IPC case) allowing the State's Section 311 Cr.P.C application — allowed partly, with respect to record of three mobile phones already in the prosecution's possession — to bring on record CDRs, Location Chart with CAFs and requisite certificate; directing summoning of Nodal Officers of Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance and IO/Inspector Ashu Girotra; prosecution evidence put up for 02.08.2025.¶10
Trial Court (SC No. 57453/2016) · 2025-07-29
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet filed on 21 December 2011; over 14 years the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and 1 court witness.¶27
Prior proceeding
Prosecution evidence closed vide Trial Court order dated 31.05.2023; the documentary evidence (CDRs etc.) was not filed despite notice to the service providers, the chargesheet stating it would be filed as and when produced; Trial Court observed it was not evidence introduced for the first time.¶23
Prior proceeding
After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and defence evidence concluded.¶31
Prior proceeding
Final arguments on behalf of the defence commenced on 15 January 2025, especially since the prosecution had chosen not to address oral arguments.¶32
Prior proceeding
Prosecution moved its first Section 311 Cr.P.C application (matter adjourned to 24 January 2025), seeking to place on record a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to toll plaza records.¶32
Prior proceeding
First Section 311 application rejected by the Trial Court on 4 July 2025.¶32
Prior proceeding
Second Section 311 Cr.P.C application filed on 14 July 2025, seeking to introduce the CDRs and CAFs of the accused, the deceased and her parents, with a prayer to summon the Nodal Officers of the respective telecom service providers.¶33
Prior proceeding
Third application moved on 24 July 2025, supplementing the second application and seeking to summon additional witnesses.¶34
Prior proceeding
Additional witnesses sought: (i) Nodal Officers of Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance, (ii) SHO of PS Hari Nagar, and (iii) PW-4 Nibha Saha, mother of the deceased.¶34
Prior proceeding
Third application accompanied by an analysis report indicating the original records could not be traced from the record room and had to be obtained again from the respective telecom providers.¶34
Prior proceeding
During investigation the Investigating Officer had issued notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the concerned telecom service providers seeking the CDRs and CAFs of the relevant mobile numbers.¶41
Prior proceeding
Owing to an inadvertent omission by the earlier Investigating Officer, the documents noticed under Section 91 Cr.P.C were not brought on record.¶41
Prior proceeding
IO Inspector Ashu Girotra procured the records afresh after the original set could not be traced from the police file.¶42
Prior proceeding
Documents pertain to three mobile numbers belonging to the accused, the deceased and the deceased's father, each already referred to in the chargesheet.¶42