2008 (7) TMI 969 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the application of the appellant seeking re-examination of the witnesses already examined in terms of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 rejected?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the rejection of application seeking re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which rejected the petition filed by the appellant. The primary issue was the rejection of the application seeking re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court had rejected the application based on the timeline of events related to the case, which the High Court concurred with.

In support of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant argued that certain relevant documents had not been proved during the examination of a witness, even though other witnesses had already proven some of these documents. The respondents, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court delved into the provisions of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants discretionary authority to a court to summon, examine, or recall witnesses at any stage of an inquiry or trial. The section is divided into two parts, with the first part being discretionary and the second part being mandatory if new evidence is deemed essential to the just decision of the case. The court emphasized that the objective of the section is to prevent a failure of justice due to the omission of valuable evidence or ambiguity in witness statements.

The court clarified that the power under Section 311 is not limited to benefiting the accused and can be used to summon witnesses at any stage of the proceedings. The discretion conferred by the section must be judiciously exercised, considering the necessity for a judicial approach. The court highlighted that the best available evidence should be presented before the court, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse inferences.

Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized that Section 311 aims to ensure a just decision by bringing forth evidence from various perspectives, including that of the accused, prosecution, and society at large. The right to cross-examine a witness called by the court arises from the Evidence Act, and in cases where a witness called by the court provides evidence against the complainant, the complainant should be allowed to cross-examine.

In the specific case at hand, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have permitted the prayer for re-examination of witnesses. Therefore, the rejection of the prayer by the trial court was deemed improper, and the High Court should not have declined to interfere. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing the Trial Court to fix a date for calling the witnesses in question, granting an opportunity to the accused persons, and proceeding with the trial within three months.