9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2152 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking summoning of one Dr. I. Yusuf (who had conducted first postmortem of the dead-body of the Appellant's daughter in Nigeria) through High Commission of Nigeria or to record his evidence through video-conferencing, after issuing a commission for the purpose - Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - HELD THAT - It is difficult to approve the orders impugned; and it appears just and proper that the application moved in this matter Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure be allowed with direction to the Trial Court to ensure that the testimony of the doctor conducting first post-mortem comes on record. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like those Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure are essentially intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity in so far as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure and amplitude of the powers of the Court thereunder have been explained by this Court in several decisions. The Trial Court disposed of the application Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure on entirely irrelevant considerations and the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure while overlooking and ignoring the material and relevant aspects of the case. In our view, the said application Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be allowed. This appeal is allowed in the manner and to the extent that the impugned orders dated 31.05.2018 and 02.08.2018 are set aside and the application moved in this matter Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for summoning a witness. 2. Relevance of the testimony of Dr. I. Yusuf, who conducted the first post-mortem. 3. Discretion exercised by the Trial Court and High Court in rejecting the application. 4. Consideration of Sections 284 and 285 CrPC for recording evidence through commission or video-conferencing. 5. Ensuring a just decision by taking all necessary and material evidence on record. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Section 311 CrPC for Summoning a Witness: The appellant, mother of the deceased, filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon Dr. I. Yusuf, who conducted the first post-mortem in Nigeria, or to record his evidence through video-conferencing. The Trial Court rejected this application, citing the prolonged pendency of the trial and the availability of the post-mortem report on record. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. Relevance of the Testimony of Dr. I. Yusuf: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Dr. I. Yusuf's testimony, noting that his post-mortem report stated the cause of death as "asphyxia secondary to strangulation." The Court found that his testimony was essential for a just decision in the case, as the Medical Board in India could not provide a definite opinion on the cause of death. The Court underscored that the testimony of Dr. I. Yusuf was germane to the questions involved and necessary for both parties to present their case adequately. 3. Discretion Exercised by the Trial Court and High Court: The Supreme Court criticized the Trial Court for rejecting the application on irrelevant grounds, such as the case's pendency since 2010. The Court also found fault with the High Court for not exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to correct this error. The Supreme Court highlighted that the length of a case should not displace the need for a just decision by taking all material evidence on record. 4. Consideration of Sections 284 and 285 CrPC for Recording Evidence: The Supreme Court pointed out that the Trial Court could have utilized Sections 284 and 285 CrPC to issue a commission for recording Dr. I. Yusuf's evidence, thereby avoiding delays and inconvenience. The Court cited the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, where evidence was recorded through video-conferencing. The Court instructed the Trial Court to consider this method to ensure the testimony is recorded with minimal inconvenience. 5. Ensuring a Just Decision by Taking All Necessary and Material Evidence on Record: The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary objective is to ensure a just decision by considering all relevant facts and evidence. The Court emphasized that the discretionary powers under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised judiciously to summon material witnesses whose testimony is essential for the case. The Court directed the Trial Court to take all necessary measures to record Dr. I. Yusuf's testimony through commission or video-conferencing and to proceed expeditiously to conclude the matter. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court and High Court. The application under Section 311 CrPC was granted, and the Trial Court was directed to ensure the examination of Dr. I. Yusuf through commission or video-conferencing, ensuring expeditious proceedings. The Court emphasized that these directions were made without commenting on the merits of the case, which the Trial Court should assess based on the evidence brought on record.
|
