2017 (9) TMI 1983 - SC - Indian Laws

Cross-examination of witnesses - power to examine or re-examine any witness under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. - prayer for re-examination as witnesses for the reason that the statements recorded earlier were made on the instructions of the police, rejected by Sessions Judge - order of the Sessions Judge has been set aside by the High Court - whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court? - HELD THAT - In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order. Coming to the facts of the present case, PWs 4 and 5 were examined between 29.11.2010 and 11.3.2011. They were cross-examined at length during the said period. During the police investigation and in their evidence, they have supported the prosecution story. The Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that they were not under any pressure while recording their evidence. After a passage of 14 months, they have filed the application for their re-examination on the ground that the statements made by them earlier were under pressure. They have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making application. It is obvious that they had been won over - there are no reasons to allow such an application. The Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in rejecting the application. In our view, High Court was not right in setting aside the said order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Appellant
2. Justification of the High Court in Setting Aside the Sessions Judge's Order
3. Application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The first question for consideration is whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court. The term 'locus standi' is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as 'the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.' Traditionally, only a person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court. However, the concept of locus standi in criminal jurisprudence is different. It is well-settled that anyone can set the criminal law in motion except where the statute indicates otherwise. This principle is based on the policy that an offence is not only against the person who suffers harm but also against society. Thus, the appellant, being the paternal brother of the deceased and a prosecution witness, has the right to challenge the High Court's order. The Supreme Court has recognized this in previous judgments, including A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand, where it was held that the doctrine of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, the appellant has the locus standi to file this appeal.

2. Justification of the High Court in Setting Aside the Sessions Judge's Order:
The next question is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon or recall any person if their evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the applications of PWs 4 and 5, noting that they were examined and cross-examined at length and had supported the prosecution story during the police investigation. The applications for re-examination were filed 14 months later, with no reasons assigned for the delay. The Sessions Judge observed that the applications were filed to favor the accused persons and were without merit. The High Court, however, allowed the applications, which the Supreme Court found unjustified. The delay in filing the application and the absence of any substantial reason for re-examination indicated that the witnesses had been won over. Therefore, the High Court's order was set aside.

3. Application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.):
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. grants the court the power to summon or recall any witness at any stage of the trial if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The provision aims to ensure that justice is served by bringing the best possible evidence on record. However, this power must be exercised judiciously and with caution. The reasons for exercising this power should be clearly stated in the order. In the present case, PWs 4 and 5 were examined and cross-examined extensively, and they had supported the prosecution story. Their applications for re-examination were filed after a significant delay, and no valid reasons were provided for this delay. The Supreme Court noted that the witnesses had likely been influenced, and the Sessions Judge was correct in dismissing the applications. The High Court's decision to allow the re-examination was found to be erroneous.

Conclusion:
The appeal succeeds, and the order of the High Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1679 of 2012, dated 22.5.2012, is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter without considering the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the High Court's order. All pending applications are also disposed of.