9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1367 - SC - Indian LawsDowry - death of wife of the 1st respondent under unnatural circumstances - summoning the witnesses along with securing the relevant records - Section 173(5) read with Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code . It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion. The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice - Indisputedly, the facts in the instant case are that the daughter of the appellant died an unnatural death on the intervening night of 2nd/3rd April, 2004 in Bangalore where she was living with the respondents who are facing trial under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the trial is at the fag end of its closure and the case is listed for hearing. In the instant case, although the application was filed by the Ld. Additional Special Public Prosecutor under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC but it was open for the Ld. Trial Judge as well to exercise suo motu powers in summoning the witnesses whose statements ought to be recorded to subserve the cause of justice, with the object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth - It is not necessary that in every case, it is required to record elaborate reasons but since the matters are carried forward to this Court, the reasons, albiet brief may be, have to be recorded to facilitate this Court to understand as to what weighed with the Ld. Judge while passing the impugned judgment, moreover, when the finding of reversal has been recorded by the Ld. Judge in its impugned judgment. The judgment of the High Court impugned dated 11th January, 2017 is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for summoning witnesses and securing relevant records. 2. High Court's quashing of the Trial Court's order allowing the application. 3. Examination of the scope and ambit of Section 311 CrPC. 4. Relevance and admissibility of the second post-mortem report. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC: The respondents were facing a criminal trial for offences under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act due to the unnatural death of the first respondent's wife. During the trial, the Additional Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC to summon witnesses and secure relevant records to meet the ends of justice. The Trial Court allowed this application, noting the scope of Section 311 CrPC and assigning cogent reasons for its decision. 2. High Court's Quashing of the Trial Court's Order: The respondents challenged the Trial Court's order in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order without assigning detailed reasons, which led to the appellant (father of the deceased) approaching the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not examine the scope and ambit of Section 311 CrPC or the reasoning of the Trial Court, and thus, the High Court's judgment was unsustainable in law. 3. Examination of the Scope and Ambit of Section 311 CrPC: The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 311 CrPC allows the court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. This discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and with caution. The object of Section 311 CrPC is to prevent failure of justice due to the omission of valuable evidence or ambiguity in witness statements. The principles for exercising this power have been well settled in previous cases, such as Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Mannan Shaikh and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. 4. Relevance and Admissibility of the Second Post-Mortem Report: The Trial Court noted that the second post-mortem was conducted by a team of doctors in J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, and was not a private investigation but was done through the Worli Police, Mumbai. The investigating officer had corresponded with the Worli Police and Mumbai doctors to obtain the second post-mortem report, considering it part of the investigation. The Trial Court allowed the application under Section 311 CrPC to summon the witnesses and examine the doctor who conducted the second post-mortem to determine the real cause of death, especially after the first post-mortem doctor turned hostile. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court failed to consider these factual details and the Trial Court's reasoning. The High Court's summary quashing of the Trial Court's order without detailed reasons was inappropriate. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the trial. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to comply with its order dated 3rd September 2016 and conclude the trial expeditiously.
|
