Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original accused in Sessions Case No.12/2013 pending before the Sessions Judge, faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that on 22.5.2010, the petitioners instigated his daughter to elope with co-accused Deepak Baraskar and Ramchandra Baraskar. After the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner No.4 examined herself as a defence witness, and the defence evidence was closed. The matter was posted for final arguments on 25.10.2013. On that day, the petitioners filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. requesting to call Dy.S.P. Anil Ghuge as a defence witness. They claimed that prosecution witnesses P.I. A.V. Raikar and Head Constable B.V. Jagtap had conspired to bring malicious proceedings against them, and that petitioner No.4 had given complaints against Raikar to higher authorities. The Sessions Judge rejected the application vide order dated 13.1.2014. The High Court held that while Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide discretion on the court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence is essential for a just decision, such power cannot be exercised to fill up a lacuna or to cause prejudice to the other side. The application was filed at a very belated stage after the defence evidence was closed and after the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Allowing the application would cause prejudice to the prosecution and delay the trial. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the Sessions Judge's order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 - Summoning of witness - Power of court - Application filed after closure of defence evidence and after statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Held, the court has wide discretion but must exercise it judicially; application at belated stage to fill up lacuna is not permissible - Sessions Judge rightly rejected the application as it would cause prejudice to prosecution and delay trial (Paras 2-6). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 - Stage of application - Final arguments - Application filed on the day of final arguments after defence evidence closed - Held, such application cannot be allowed as it would defeat the purpose of fair trial and cause unnecessary delay - Revision dismissed (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused persons to call Dy.S.P. Anil Ghuge as a defence witness after the defence evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final arguments.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the order of the Sessions Judge dated 13.1.2014 rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Law Points
- Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide discretion on court to summon any person as witness if his evidence is essential for just decision
- but such power cannot be exercised to fill up lacuna or to cause prejudice to other side
- application filed at belated stage after closure of defence evidence and after statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable
- court must consider stage of proceedings and necessity of evidence.
