Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused nos. 1 to 4 in S.C. No. 5006/2016 pending before the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the trial court. By that order, the trial court allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC seeking permission to produce a micro chip and CD as additional evidence. The case arose from Crime No. 137/2015 registered by the PSI of Kampli Police Station, Ballari. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for various offences. The trial court framed charges and proceeded with trial. The prosecution examined 44 witnesses, including the complainant as PW-8, and closed its evidence. On 06.12.2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to produce the micro chip and CD. The trial court allowed the application, leading to the present petition. The petitioners argued that the prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the evidence during trial and that allowing it at a belated stage would cause prejudice. The State opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the prosecution failed to justify the delay and that permitting additional evidence after the defence had commenced would violate the principles of fair trial. The court quashed the trial court's order, thereby disallowing the production of the micro chip and CD as additional evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 CrPC - Additional Evidence - Power to summon material witness or examine person present - The prosecution sought to produce micro chip and CD as additional evidence after examining 44 witnesses and closing its evidence. The trial court allowed the application. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to explain the delay in producing the evidence and that allowing such evidence at a belated stage would cause prejudice to the accused. The order was quashed. (Paras 1-6)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 CrPC - Delay and Prejudice - The court observed that the prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the evidence during trial but did not do so. Permitting additional evidence after the defence had commenced would violate the principles of fair trial. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the prosecution to produce additional evidence (micro chip and CD) under Section 311 CrPC after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the case was at the stage of defence evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in S.C. No. 5006/2016 insofar as it permitted the prosecution to produce micro chip and CD as additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC
- Additional evidence
- Delay in production
- Prejudice to accused
- Fair trial
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (10) 21
Sri V.M. Sheelavant (for petitioners), Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik (Govt. Pleader for respondent)
Avinasha K @ Avinash K, Ashok Kumar @ Ashoka Kumara K, Anil Kumara K, Lakshmi Bai @ Jaya Lakshmi Bai
The State of Karnataka by PSI, Kampli Police Station, Ballari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging trial court order allowing prosecution to produce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (accused) sought quashing of the trial court order dated 30.01.2018 permitting prosecution to produce micro chip and CD as additional evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to produce additional evidence (micro chip and CD) after the prosecution had closed its evidence, which the petitioners contended was prejudicial and without justification.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at Hosapete) passed the order dated 30.01.2018 in S.C. No. 5006/2016 allowing the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the prosecution to produce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the case was at the stage of defence evidence.
Whether the order allowing additional evidence caused prejudice to the accused and violated principles of fair trial.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the micro chip and CD during trial but failed to do so, and allowing it at a belated stage would cause prejudice to the accused.
Respondent/State argued that the evidence was necessary for just decision of the case and the trial court had discretion to allow it under Section 311 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 311 CrPC to summon material witness or examine person present is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously and not to fill gaps in prosecution case. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in producing the micro chip and CD, and allowing such evidence after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the defence had commenced would cause prejudice to the accused and violate the principles of fair trial.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused nos.1 to 4 in S.C. No. 5006/2016 by challenging the order passed by the trial Judge on an application filed u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. dated 30.01.2018 wherein the trial Court has permitted the prosecution to produce the additional evidence, as micro chip and CD.
The prosecution failed to explain the delay in producing the micro chip and CD, and allowing such evidence after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the defence had commenced would cause prejudice to the accused and violate the principles of fair trial.
Procedural History
The PSI of Kampli Police Station registered Crime No. 137/2015. After investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused in S.C. No. 5006/2016. The trial court framed charges and proceeded with trial. The prosecution examined 44 witnesses and closed its evidence. On 06.12.2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to produce micro chip and CD as additional evidence. The trial court allowed the application on 30.01.2018. The accused filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter and passed the order on 04.10.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 311, 482
