Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Vijaya Trimbakrao Shirole, the widow of the deceased Trimbakrao Shirole, filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.452 of 2002. The impugned order rejected the prosecution's application to examine two additional witnesses. The petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer had not proceeded with the investigation properly and that the two witnesses were essential for the just decision of the case. The State Government, upon request, decided not to file a criminal revision application against the order, prompting the petitioner to file the writ petition. The legal issue was whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the order and whether the trial court's rejection was correct. The court heard arguments from Mr. S.M. Kelkar for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Mohite for respondent Nos. 2 to 8, and Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. The court held that the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, was an aggrieved person and had locus standi to file the writ petition. On merits, the court found that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application, as the evidence of the two witnesses was essential for a just decision. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the prosecution to examine the two additional witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi of Victim's Relative - Writ Petition Maintainability - The widow of the deceased, being an aggrieved person, has locus standi to file a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the prosecution's application to examine additional witnesses, especially when the State Government decided not to file a revision application. The court held that the petitioner, as the victim's relative, can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Procedure - Additional Witnesses - Section 311 CrPC - The trial court's rejection of the prosecution's application to examine two additional witnesses was challenged. The court considered the principles under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the court to summon any person as a witness at any stage if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The court held that the trial court ought to have allowed the application to ensure a fair trial. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, has locus standi to file a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the prosecution's application to examine additional witnesses, and whether the impugned order is sustainable.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune, and directed the trial court to permit the prosecution to examine the two additional witnesses.
Law Points
- Locus standi of victim's relative to challenge rejection of additional witnesses
- Power of court to permit additional witnesses under Section 311 CrPC
- Maintainability of writ petition when revision not filed by State
