Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. allowed an application filed by a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to call him again for examination.

Background

• The case pertains to the facts that the appellant had complained against the accused, that the accused was an ex-employee of his company and that he had stolen and used company data to manufacture equipment for his own company.
• During trial, the evidence of the appellant was recorded before the report awaited from Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh regarding data could come.
• Upon examination of the report, the CFSL expert who prepared it described that there was data on the hard disk of the accused, but no reference was made to whether it was comparable to the allegation of stolen data.
• Thus, the appellant applied for recall of his witness.
• The Trial Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC) rejected the application for recall of witness and hence the matter is before SC.

Legal Provision

Section 311 - Power to summon material witness or examine person present —

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine 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.

Court’s Observations

• The SC while deciding the present matter took note of following judgements:
  • In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006), SC held that:
    • “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case.”
  • In Vijay Kumar v. State of UP (2011), the SC held that:
    • “Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of CrPC and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.”
  • In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019), SC has held that:
    • The discretionary authority, such as that granted under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), serves the purpose of allowing the Court to maintain the accuracy of the trial record, resolve any uncertainties pertaining to the presented evidence, and simultaneously guarantee that no unfair bias or harm is inflicted upon any party involved.
  • In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar (2023), a 3-Judge Bench of SC opined that:
    • Section 311 of CrPC should be invoked only when it is mandatory for the just decision of the case.
  • In the present matter SC held that: Based on above observations, the Court found that a case for interference has been made out and stated:
    • “Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request for recall of the appellant under Section 311 of CrPC was justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined.”

Legal Aspect

• The aim of the court is always to discover the truth. The discretionary power vested in court under Section 311 of CrPC must be exercised judiciously for fair trial and to meet the ends of justice.
• The SC has time and again reiterated that an application under Section 311 of CrPC an application cannot be rejected merely on ground that it seeks to fulfill lacuna or loopholes.
• In the Amrinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal (2009) case it was held that the Court has power under Section 311 of CrPC to summon more witnesses even after conclusion of prosecution case.