9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). 2. Whether summoning a witness is essential for the just decision of the case. 3. Determining if the impugned order has led to a failure of justice. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The section is divided into two parts, with the first part granting discretionary power to the court and the second part making it mandatory to summon a witness if their evidence is crucial to the case. 2. The court analyzed past judgments to establish the criteria for exercising discretion under Section 311. It highlighted that summoning a witness should not be aimed at filling gaps in the prosecution's case or giving unfair advantage to either party. The court emphasized that the decision to summon a witness should solely focus on whether their evidence is essential for a just decision in the case. 3. In this specific case, the court scrutinized the necessity of summoning a particular witness, Heerak Mohammed, whose presence during a dying declaration was in question. The court noted that the prosecution had already closed its evidence, the accused had been examined, and the case was listed for final arguments. The court concluded that summoning Heerak Mohammed was unnecessary and unjustified, potentially leading to a failure of justice by reopening the proceedings and defeating the purpose of expeditious trial completion. 4. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order directing the summoning of Heerak Mohammed, and instructed the Special Judge to proceed with final arguments and decide the case promptly according to the law. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of balancing the necessity of summoning witnesses with the efficient administration of justice in criminal proceedings.
|
