Summary
The Supreme Court refused special leave against the High Court's refusal to interfere with trial court orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a dowry-harassment trial. It held that one witness was rightly not summoned because nothing showed his evidence was essential, that the accused was given ample opportunity to examine the other witness summoned at his instance, and that successive Section 311 applications and adjournments were dilatory tactics.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in partly allowing the accused's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and declining to summon one of the two witnesses sought.
- Whether the trial court rightly closed the accused's opportunity to examine a witness summoned at his instance, and whether the prosecution had to examine that witness first because he was named in the prosecution's list of witnesses.
- Whether the accused's successive applications and adjournments amounted to delay tactics.
Provisions considered
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read the text of the section and surveyed precedent. The power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially, for strong and valid reasons, only where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. It should not be used for belated summoning without satisfactory reasons, for successive applications, or as an abuse of process. Applying this, the Court upheld the partial rejection of the application and the closure of the opportunity to examine the summoned witness. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court noted that the Section 311 applications were filed only after the prosecution evidence had closed and the accused's statements under Section 313 had been recorded, and treated this as part of a pattern of delay. (¶¶ 16, 20)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had dismissed the accused's application under this section challenging the trial court's orders. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that order and affirmed it. (¶¶ 1, 5, 21)
Held
- Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers a wide discretionary power to summon, examine or recall a witness at any stage, and makes it mandatory to do so where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The power must be exercised judicially and with circumspection for strong and valid reasons, not as a matter of course. Belated summoning without satisfactory reasons, successive applications, and applications that abuse the process of law should not be entertained. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Summons to the accused's sister-in-law and neighbour was rightly refused, as no material showed that she had evidence essential to the just decision of the trial. The accused's friend, who allegedly called the informant to the house and was present at the incident, was rightly summoned. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Having been summoned as an independent witness on the accused's own application, the friend was the defence's responsibility. The accused was given ample opportunity to secure his presence and examine him, including an adjournment as a last chance with costs, and his opportunity was rightly closed. The argument that the prosecution had to examine him first because he was in its list of witnesses was rejected, since he never entered the witness box as a prosecution witness. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Filing successive Section 311 applications after the prosecution evidence closed and Section 313 statements were recorded, and repeatedly seeking adjournments despite a High Court direction to expedite the trial, showed evasive and dilatory tactics. The Court would not be party to such abuse of process. (¶ 20)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; special leave refused and the High Court's order affirmed; no order as to costs.