Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Kalpesh Ramnath Saroj @ Chhotu and Ravindrakumar Ramhatai Yadav, were accused in Sessions Case No.743 of 2012 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for offences including abduction and murder of Ganesh Ramchandra Shriram. The prosecution filed an application (Exhibit 137) to examine two additional witnesses, Police Hawaldar Bhagvat and Police Constable Rupesh Patil, after the defence evidence had been closed. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 18th December 2018, directing that the investigating officer record their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and supply copies to the defence in advance. The applicants challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the application was filed belatedly and would prejudice their defence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion under Section 311 CrPC, which empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears essential for a just decision. The court noted that the applicants would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that no irreparable prejudice would be caused. The High Court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the trial court's order and directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Additional Witnesses - Section 311 CrPC - Power to summon material witness - The trial court allowed prosecution's application to examine two police witnesses after defence evidence was closed, subject to recording their statements under Section 161 CrPC and supplying copies to defence. Held that the court has wide discretion to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears essential for just decision, and no prejudice is caused to accused if opportunity for cross-examination is granted (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the prosecution's application to examine two additional witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the defence had already been closed?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the trial court's order dated 18th December 2018. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC
- power to summon material witness
- fair trial
- accused's right to cross-examine
- no prejudice if opportunity given
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 87
Criminal Application No.1474 of 2018
Mr. Nitin Sejpal for the Applicants, Mr. A R Patil, APP for the Respondent/State
Kalpesh Ramnath Saroj @ Chhotu and Ravindrakumar Ramhatai Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging trial court's order allowing prosecution to examine additional witnesses under Section 311 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought to quash the order dated 18th December 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, allowing the prosecution's application to examine two additional witnesses.
Filing Reason
The applicants contended that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to examine additional witnesses after the defence evidence was closed, causing prejudice to their defence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the prosecution's application (Exhibit 137) by order dated 18th December 2018, directing that the witnesses' statements be recorded under Section 161 CrPC and copies supplied to the defence.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing examination of additional witnesses under Section 311 CrPC was justified?
Whether the applicants would be prejudiced by the examination of additional witnesses at a belated stage?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the prosecution's application was filed after the defence evidence was closed and was an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution case, causing prejudice.
The respondent/State submitted that the witnesses were material for a just decision and the accused would have an opportunity to cross-examine them, thus no prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court has wide discretion under Section 311 CrPC to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears essential for a just decision. The accused is not prejudiced if given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court has wide discretion to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears essential for a just decision.
No prejudice is caused to the accused if opportunity for cross-examination is granted.
Procedural History
The case was registered as C.R. No.I229 of 2012 for offences under Sections 363, 385, 387 IPC, later Section 302 IPC was added. Chargesheet was filed, case committed to Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.743 of 2012. During trial, after defence evidence was closed, prosecution filed application (Exhibit 137) to examine two additional witnesses, which was allowed by the trial court on 18th December 2018. The applicants challenged this order in the High Court by filing Criminal Application No.1474 of 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 161, 311
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 363, 385, 387
