Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa filed a criminal writ petition challenging two orders dated 4.2.2019 and 12.2.2019 passed by the President, Children's Court, rejecting the prosecution's prayer for production of particulars of registration of a scooter bearing registration No.GA-07-V-7507. The respondent, Shankar Venkatram Reddy, was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 354, 302, 307 IPC and Section 8(2)(a) of the Goa Children's Act, arising from FIR No.32/2016. It was alleged that the respondent murdered his elder daughter and seriously injured his younger daughter with a Koita, and later surrendered at the police station on his scooter. During the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Sections 230 and 311 CrPC seeking permission to rely on certain documents, including the registration details of the scooter. The trial court granted the application except for the vehicle registration details, solely on the ground that the document was printed on 24.1.2019 and was not part of the original investigation. The High Court held that the trial court's reasoning was erroneous, as Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretion on the court to summon any document if its production is essential for the just decision of the case. The mere fact that the document was not part of the original investigation or was printed later is not a valid ground for rejection. The court must consider the relevance and necessity of the document. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to permit the prosecution to produce the vehicle registration details.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Production of Documents - Sections 230, 311 CrPC - The trial court rejected prosecution's application to produce vehicle registration details solely because the document was printed on 24.1.2019 and was not part of original investigation. Held that the court has wide discretion under Section 311 CrPC to summon any document if essential for just decision; the mere fact that the document was not part of original investigation or was printed later is not a valid ground for rejection. The court must consider relevance and necessity. (Paras 4-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Children's Court - Jurisdiction - The case involved offences under Sections 354, 302, 307 IPC and Section 8(2)(a) of the Goa Children's Act, tried by the Children's Court. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to permit production of the vehicle registration details. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the prosecution's application to produce registration details of a vehicle, on the ground that the document was not part of the original investigation and was printed on a later date.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 4.2.2019 and 12.2.2019, and directed the trial court to permit the prosecution to produce the registration details of the scooter bearing No.GA-07-V-7507.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretion on court to summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance
- or to recall and re-examine any person already examined
- if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case
- Section 230 CrPC allows prosecution to produce additional documents with court's permission
- Rejection of document solely because it was not part of original investigation and was printed later is not a valid ground
- Court must consider relevance and necessity for just decision.
