Controversial application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dismissed due to vagueness. Court held witnesses cannot be recalled merely to support compromise in non-compoundable offences.
Prayer for recalling the witness and examining the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
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.
Criminal Misc. No.M-16124 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.M.No.M-16124 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 16.8.2011
Narender Kumar and another
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri S.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri J.S.Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the trial Court vide which the prayer for the petitioners for deciding an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are wide enough and therefore, the learned trial Court should have granted the prayer and permitted the witness to be recalled and re-examined.
I have considered the plea which has been made before this Court and have also perused the material on record. The application which has been filed, is on record of the instant petition as Anneuxre P-7 is totally vague. It does
Criminal Misc. No.M-16124 of 2011 -2-
not reveal the reason for seeking recall of the witness. It does not also disclose the substance which is required to be produced by way of such evidence and how is it germane to the controversy.
The vagueness of the language of the application has precluded the trial Court, as also this Court to examine as to what is the purpose of summoning the witness afresh. There is indeed no doubt that the power of the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide enough to recall and re-examine any witness during the course of trial subject to the condition that it is shown to the Court that examination of such witness or appraisal of such material is essential for the just decision of the case. But if the application itself is silent about the nature of the evidence to be brought on record, and there is no suggestive material produced before the Court to justify a prayer, then I am afraid, the Court is right in declining the same as there is nothing with the Court to evaluate it to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that such evidence is necessary for the just decision of the case.
That apart, it has been stated before this Court that the matter has been compromised inter-se between the parties and that that is the purpose for recalling the witness so as to testify the same in support of the compromise.
The petitioner is facing accusations for having committed offences under Sections 365,302,201/34 I.P.C. which are the offences which cannot be compounded under any circumstances. Offences like murder etc. are abhorrent to the society and any attempt made by the persons involved to say that a compromise has been effected, is only an attempt to scuttle the process of law.
No grounds.
Dismissed.
August 16, 2011 GD
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
Criminal Misc. No.M-16124 of 2011 -3-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness can be allowed when it is vague and does not disclose the nature of evidence germane to the controversy.
Whether a compromise between a petitioner charged with non-compoundable offences like murder can legitimate a request to recall a witness to testify to the same.
Whether the trial court correctly declined the petitioners' prayer for recalling a witness as it was totall y vague and lacked suggestive material.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narender Kumar
State of Haryana
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
