Single judge of Kerala HC dismissed criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused challenging order allowing production of disability certificate after evidence concluded. Court upheld Section 311 Cr.P.C. power to admit essential evidence late.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed holding impugned order allowing additional evidence valid.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 874 OF 2023
CRIME NO.802/2013 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST SC NO.782 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SHYJU
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON MUNDANKOTTIL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM KARA, POTHANIKAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686671
BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN SRI.RALPH RETI JOHN SRI.APPU BABU SMT.SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR SRI.GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR SMT.VISHNUMAYA M.B. SMT.GEETHU T.A. SMT.APOORVA RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN PIN - 682031
SRI. T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2024, THE COURT ON 03.04.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
“C.R.”
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C. No.874 of 2023
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
ORDER
Can a document that was not procured during investigation and produced along with the final report, be introduced, after the evidence is over by recourse to section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
-:3:-
the Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha allowed the said application.
-:4:-
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
hand, contended that the court's power to permit any evidence to come on record is determined by its essentiality, and therefore, the court's power to permit such recall of witnesses or reopening of evidence cannot be restricted.
sessions. Section 226 Cr.P.C states that the Prosecutor shall open
the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and must also state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. If the accused refuses to plead guilty, the court may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing as per section 230 Cr.P.C. Under section 231 Cr.P.C, on the date fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The provisions of sections 230 and 231 Cr.P.C referred to above, do not indicate that the issue of process for compelling the production of any document or other thing is confined to any document produced along with the final report. Similarly, the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the
-:5:-
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
prosecution need not necessarily be confined to those produced along with the final report.
Pai and Another , [(2002) 5 SCC 82], the Supreme Court had observed that, normally, the Investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge sheet. The Court also held that, however, there is no specific prohibition that documents cannot be produced subsequently and that, if some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce it with the permission of
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
-:6:-
the court. It was also observed that if further investigation is not precluded under section 173 Cr.P.C, there is no question of not permitting production of additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.
Cell [(1999) 6 SCC 110], while dealing with the question on what is the lacuna in a prosecution case, the Supreme Court observed that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified since the function of a criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to find errors found by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. Yet again, in P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay Shaw [(2003) 11 SCC 486], the Supreme Court held that even after the arguments were heard and the case was posted for judgment, the complainant can move the trial court for the reception of additional material in exercise of the powers under section 311 Cr.P.C. The power under section 311 Cr.P.C is of the widest range as held by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and Another [(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 271.
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
-:7:-
arising in the instant case are considered, it is evident that the prosecution alleges that due to the act of the accused, the victim became blind, and the accused is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 326A of IPC. The certificate of the Medical Board indicating 100% blindness of the victim was obtained only in 2016 and this document was not known to the Investigating Officer or to the Public Prosecutor. It was only after the trial was completed that the victim handed over such a document to the Public Prosecutor. The nature of the crime alleged, and the nature of the certificate sought to be produced by the prosecution indicate that the same is essential for a just decision in the case. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a recent judgment in V.N.Patil v. K.Niranjan Kumar and Others [(2021) 3 SCC 661 wherein the Supreme Court had observed that the Trial Court can exercise suo motu powers in summoning witnesses whose statements ought to be recorded to subserve the cause of justice with the object of getting evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.
Crl.M.C. No.874/23 -:8:-
aiding the ultimate object of a criminal trial, that is, to render justice to the parties. There is no embargo or restriction in summoning any person as a witness, even those witnesses whose statements have not been recorded earlier, or to accept any material. The only restriction is that the material or the evidence sought to be adduced must be essential for a just decision in the case. The contention that the document was not seized earlier or that it was not part of the final report, is not a relevant consideration in a proceeding of this nature.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
vps
-:9:-
Crl.M.C. No.874/23
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 IN CRL M. P. 20/2023 IN SC 782/2017 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a document not procured during investigation and produced with the final report can be introduced after evidence is over under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Whether the prosecution can be permitted to reopen evidence to produce a disability certificate stating the victim is 100% blind.
Whether the learned Session Judge committed perversity in allowing the production of the document deemed essential for a just decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and AnotherReferred¶45
[(2002) 5 SCC 82] · Who else cites this
Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic CellReferred¶50
[(1999) 6 SCC 110] · Who else cites this
P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay ShawReferred¶50
[(2003) 11 SCC 486] · Who else cites this
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and AnotherReferred¶50
[(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 271] · Who else cites this
V.N.Patil v. K.Niranjan Kumar and OthersReferred¶55
[(2021) 3 SCC 661] · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
SHYJU
STATE OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Parties & counsel
