Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Binod Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand has held that to ensure the fair trial the documentary evidence may also be adduced even after conclusion of the evidence so as to give the just decision of the case.

What was the Background of Binod Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• In this case, the petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused for dishonour of the cheque issued to set up the business of medicine.
• In the complaint case, the evidence of the complainant was completed and the statement of the accused under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded.
• The accused examined himself in defence evidence in which this fact was deposed by the accused that the marriage of his sister was cancelled in Hyderabad.
• In regard to the same he apprised the petitioner in October 2015 and the said cheque was demanded back from him and the petitioner said that the same cheque was kept in his Office.
• The said cheque was never returned despite repeated demand.
• In order to rebut this fact, which was deposed by the accused in evidence, the petitioner moved the application before the learned court-below to adduce the copy of the FIR.
• Against the said application, the objection was filed on behalf of the accused.
• The Trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 311 of CrPC for production of the document.
• Aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court, a criminal revision has been filed before the High Court of Jharkhand which was later allowed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subhash Chand observed that the very purpose of Section 311 of CrPC is to ensure the fair trial which is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Even if there is no specific provision in Section 311 of CrPC in regard to adducing the documentary evidence; but reading Sections 91 and 311 of CrPC, simultaneously to ensure the fair trial the documentary evidence may also be adduced even after conclusion of the evidence so as to give the just decision of the case.
• It was further held that the learned trial court by passing the impugned order has rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the complaint cannot be permitted to rebut the evidence adduced in defence after concluding his evidence, the same finding is found perverse and the same order needs interference.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 311 of CrPC

About:

• Section 311 of CrPC deals with the power to summon material witness or examine person present whereas the same provisions has been covered under Section 348 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
• Under the provisions of section 311 CrPC, the court has plenary power to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witness. This power includes recall and re-examination of any person who has already been examined.
• The power lies with the Court alone as juxtaposed to rights or powers of parties and this power is to be exercised when the court finds it necessary to summon/recall any witness for just decision of the case.

Objectives:

• In the case of Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008), the Supreme Court highlighted the object of Section 311 of CrPC which is as follows:
  • It provides an opportunity for the accused and the prosecution to present their case and get justice.
  • It aims at preventing any scope of failure of justice.

Case Law:

• In Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 313 of CrPC is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

Section 91 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the summons to produce document or other thing. It states that—

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) To affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) To apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.