2022 (8) TMI 1473 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to summon the nodal officers of certain cellular entities along with the decoding register to trace the mobile location of accused Vikas, Mangilal and Suresh - HELD THAT - In the present case, the application of the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers is relatable to the provisions of Section 91 CrPC. The decoding registers are sought to be produced through the representatives of the cellular companies in whose custody or possession they are found. The decoding registers are a relevant piece of evidence to establish the co-relationship between the location of the accused and the cell phone tower. The reasons which weighed with the High Court and the Trial Court in dismissing the application are extraneous to the power which is conferred under Section 91 on the one hand and Section 311 on the other. The power under Section 311 to summon a witness is conditioned by the requirement that the evidence of the person who is sought to be summoned appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 of the CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the rejection of an application under Section 311 CrPC.
2. Bar under Section 301 CrPC regarding the appellant's standing.
3. Relevance and production of the decoding register.
4. Timeliness and procedural propriety of the application under Section 311 CrPC.
5. Fair trial rights of the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Rejection of an Application under Section 311 CrPC:
The appellant challenged the correctness of the order dated 13 November 2021 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore, which rejected an application under Section 311 CrPC. The application sought to summon the nodal officers of certain cellular entities along with the decoding register to trace the mobile location of the accused. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the document was not part of the investigation and had not been obtained during the investigation. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the decoding registers were not part of the case diary or charge-sheet, and the prosecution had closed its evidence.

2. Bar under Section 301 CrPC Regarding the Appellant's Standing:
The respondents argued that under Section 301 CrPC, it was not open for the appellant, the spouse of the deceased, to pursue these proceedings. However, the court clarified that Section 301 does not preclude the appellant from pursuing the appeal as the application under Section 311 was submitted by the State. The court emphasized that Section 301 places limitations on private persons participating in criminal proceedings but does not bar them from pursuing justice when the application is moved by the State.

3. Relevance and Production of the Decoding Register:
The prosecution argued that the decoding register was crucial to establish the corelationship between the location of the accused and the cell phone tower. The nodal officers of the cellular companies had testified that the call details included location codes, which could only be understood using the decoding register. The court held that the decoding register was a vital piece of evidence and its production was essential for the just decision of the case. The court noted that the trial court and the High Court had erred in dismissing the application on extraneous grounds.

4. Timeliness and Procedural Propriety of the Application under Section 311 CrPC:
The respondents contended that the application under Section 311 was filed at a belated stage and should not be allowed. However, the court noted that the application was filed before the closure of the prosecution's evidence and was dismissed on the same day the evidence was closed. The court reiterated that Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses at any stage of the trial if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The court held that procedural propriety was maintained and the application was not an abuse of the process of law.

5. Fair Trial Rights of the Accused:
The respondents argued that allowing the application would prejudice the accused and violate their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court acknowledged the importance of a fair trial but emphasized that the production of the decoding register was necessary to ensure justice. The court held that the right to a fair trial includes the right to present all relevant evidence, and the prosecution's effort to produce the decoding register was in line with this principle.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 April 2022, as well as the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 13 November 2021. The application for the production of the decoding registers and summoning of the witnesses of the cellular companies was allowed. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial by 31 October 2022. Additionally, interim bail for one of the accused was extended due to medical reasons.

← Previous Next →