High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside orders dismissing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. petition was allowed to summon the victim as a witness. Impugned orders were quashed.
Impugned orders dated 16.12.2011 and 23.1.2012 set aside; application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed to summon Firdous.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1904 of 2015
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1904 of 2015 Date of Decision: 26.11.2015.
Mehboob Hasan
........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondents No. 2 to 6.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the orders dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 23.1.2012 (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Firdous wife of the complainant-petitioner was abducted by the accused. Although, statement of Firdous was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation but due to inadvertence, she was not cited as a witness in the list of witnesses. In fact, Firdous was the victim and her statement during trial was necessary for the just decision of the case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that statement of Firdous was recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but due to inadvertence,
GURPREET SINGH 2015.12.01 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
-2 -
Crl. Misc. No. M-1904 of 2015
her name could not be mentioned in the list of witnesses. Since Firdous was the victim, her statement during trial was necessary for the just decision of the case.
None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 to
Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“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 reexamine 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.”
Thus, in view of the above provision, the Court may at
any time recall a witness if it serves the ends of justice.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainantpetitioner Mehboob Hasan had received information on 6.11.2005 that the accused armed with weapons had entered his house at about 3.00 P.M. and had abducted his wife at a gun point. Valuable household articles and ornaments had been taken away by the accused. Complainant-petitioner returned home from Delhi and found that household articles worth ` 4,00,000/- had been stolen. Wife of the complainant-petitioner recovered by the police on the same day. Wife of the complainant-petitioner was got medico-legally examined. The
GURPREET SINGH 2015.12.01 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-1904 of 2015 -3 -
medico-legal report of Firdous, wife of the complainantpetitioner, is Annexure P-8.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired that statement of Firdous was recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but it appears that due to inadvertence she had not been cited as a witness. Since in the present case, it is the case of prosecution that Firdous, wife of the petitioner, had been abducted, statement of Firdous would be material for the just decision of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-5) erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court of Revision further erred in upholding the order passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure P-7).
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 23.1.2012 (Annexure P-7) are set aside. Consequently, application (Annexure P-4) moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Firdous as prosecution witness, is allowed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
November 26, 2015 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2015.12.01 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the victim as a witness should be set aside.
Whether the application for summoning Firdous as a prosecution witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mehboob Hasan
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
