S.311 CrPC Meant to Elicit Truth, Not Favour Either Side

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of C v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026), allowed a petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 311 of the CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS) and directed the trial court to summon the principal of the prosecutrix's school along with her Class I admission records, holding that the provision is intended to unravel the truth and not to favour either the prosecution or the accused. 

What was the Background of C v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner was accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), wherein the age of the prosecutrix was a material question for determining the applicability of the Act. 
• The trial court had relied upon the prosecutrix's Class IV admission form, which recorded her birth year as 2001, to establish that she was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. 
• The petitioner contended that contradictory documents existed regarding the prosecutrix's age: her Class X mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education recorded her birth year as 2000, and her Class I admission form from another school recorded her birth year as 1999. 
• On the basis of these contradictions, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to summon the principal of the other school along with the prosecutrix's Class I admission records, in order to establish that she was a major at the time of the alleged incident. 
• The trial court rejected this application on the ground that it had been filed at the stage of final arguments, i.e., at the "fag end" of the trial. 
• Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Rajasthan High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the purpose of Section 311 CrPC: The Court held that the provision does not exist to favour or disfavour either the prosecution or the accused. Its sole purpose is to naturally unravel the truth so that the court may exercise a just decision in the matter. The stage of the trial, including the final argument stage, is not a bar to its invocation. 
• On age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act: The Court referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and held that where there are reasonable grounds to doubt the age of a person, age must be determined on the basis of the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, if available. 
• On contradictory documents: The Court noted that contradictory documents were on record regarding the prosecutrix's date of birth, and that this created a genuine dispute as to her age at the time of the alleged incident. 
• On summoning of school records: The Court held that in order to bring out the correct facts regarding the actual date of birth of the prosecutrix, it was essential to summon the record of her other school, as sought by the petitioner through the application under Section 311 CrPC. 
• On direction to trial court: Allowing the petition, the Court set aside the trial court's order of rejection and directed it to summon the principal of the concerned school along with the relevant records. 

What is Section 348 of BNSS? 

Section 348 BNSS, 2023 — Power to Summon Material Witness or Examine Person Present: 

Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the provision corresponding to Section 311 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), with no substantive change in content. 

Key Provisions: 

• Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the BNSS, exercise the following powers:  
  • Summon any person as a witness. 
  • Examine any person present in court, even if not formally summoned as a witness. 
  • Recall and re-examine any person already examined. 
• The Court shall (mandatory) summon, examine, or recall any such person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

Two-Part Structure: 

• The first part is discretionary — the Court may exercise the power at its own initiative. 
• The second part is mandatory — the Court is obliged to act where the evidence of a person is essential for a just decision. 

Judicial Interpretation (applicable to Section 348 BNSS by parity): 

• The power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. 
• It cannot be invoked merely to fill up lacunae or rectify oversights in the case of either the prosecution or the defence. 
• The object is to serve the ends of justice, not to give a party a second opportunity to cure its own lapses. 
• In sensitive cases, particularly involving victims of sexual offences, courts must weigh the hardship caused to the witness by repeated appearances before ordering recall.