Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1475
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS…………………….OF 2025
@ SLP (CRL.) NOS.1167-1168/2025
MAYANKKUMAR NATWARLAL
KANKANA PATEL & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the common judgment and
order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal
Application No. 5648 of 2024 and Special Criminal
Application No. 10715 of 2024. By the impugned order,
the High Court set aside the order dated 30th March,
2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions
Case No. 22 of 2018 and allowed the application filed
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1
1973 , permitting the prosecution to examine the minor
Signature Not Verified
child, Aashvi, as a witness.
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.12.19
16:25:15 IST
Reason:
1
In short “CrPC”
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 1 of 7
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present
appeals are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant No.1 and the deceased were married in
the year 2010. A daughter, Aashvi, was born from the
wedlock in 2013. Respondent No. 2, the father of the
deceased, is the complainant who lodged a complaint
on 1st December, 2017, registered as FIR No. 224 of
2017, for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
306, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
2
Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3.2 The allegation in the FIR is that the complainant’s
daughter committed suicide on 5th November, 2017
by hanging herself with a dupatta. The FIR came to be
registered nearly one month after the incident. It was
alleged that the accused–appellants had subjected the
deceased to mental and physical cruelty in connection
with demands for money for purchase of a car, house,
and motorcycle. It was further alleged that Appellant
No. 1 had an extra-marital relationship, abused the
deceased verbally, and threatened her, thereby driving
her to commit suicide.
3.3 Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was
filed on 23rd February, 2018. Charges were framed,
and the trial commenced.
2
In short “IPC”
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 2 of 7
3.4 During the course of trial, after examination of 21
prosecution witnesses, the respondents filed an
application dated 6th September, 2023 under Section
311 CrPC seeking permission to examine the minor
daughter of the deceased, Aashvi, as a prosecution
witness. The application was founded on the assertion
that the child was present in the house at the time of
the incident. At the relevant time, the child was
approximately 4 years and 9 months old.
3.5 The Trial Court rejected the application. It held that at
no earlier stage had the complainant disclosed that
the minor child was present at the time of the incident.
The Trial Court noted that neither the FIR nor the
statements recorded during investigation, including
the complainant’s statement, contained any such
averment. It was further observed that despite a delay
of nearly one month in lodging the FIR, no such fact
was disclosed. Considering the tender age of the child
and the unexplained delay, the Trial Court declined to
permit her examination.
3.6 Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the
High Court.
4. The High Court, by the impugned common order,
allowed the petitions. The order of the Trial Court was
set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to
examine the minor witness. The High Court directed
the Trial Court to ensure adequate opportunity of
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 3 of 7
cross-examination to the defence and to take due care
of the mental and emotional well-being of the child
during deposition.
5. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the minor
could be treated as a material witness, and possibly an
eyewitness, having regard to Section 118 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It further observed that the
complainant had attempted to have the child’s
statement recorded during investigation but was
allegedly denied by the police. On these considerations,
the Trial Court’s order was interfered with. Aggrieved
thereby, the Appellants are before this Court.
6. We have heard Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, learned
counsel for the Appellants; Mr. Pradhuman Gohil,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 2–complainant;
and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the
Respondent–State.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the
child was only 4 years old at the time of the incident
and her statement was never recorded
contemporaneously. It was argued that the child is now
about 11 years old and has been residing with her
maternal grandparents since the incident. Given the
lapse of over seven years, it was contended that the
child cannot be expected to recall the incident reliably.
The possibility of tutoring was emphasized, particularly
in view of her prolonged separation from Appellant No.
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 4 of 7
1, her father. It was further urged that neither the FIR
nor any prosecution witness has stated that the child
was present at the time of the incident. According to the
Appellants, permitting her examination at this stage
would cause serious prejudice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents
submitted that attempts were made to have the child’s
statement recorded during investigation but were
ignored by the police. It was contended that the
application under Section 311 CrPC was moved to bring
the best available evidence on record and that the
testimony of the child is necessary for a just decision of
the case.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and examined
the record, we are of the considered view that the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the order of
the Trial Court. The respondents have failed to
establish that examination of the minor witness, at this
belated stage, is essential for the just decision of the
case.
10. Our conclusions rest on the following grounds:
10.1 First, there is no material on record to substantiate the
claim that the minor child was present at the time of
the incident. The FIR, statements recorded during
investigation, and the testimony of the complainant do
not disclose such presence. The reliance placed on a
statement made during re-examination of the
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 5 of 7
complainant does not establish that the child
witnessed the incident. At best, it suggests that the
child was in the house and not in the room where the
incident occurred. The assumption that she is an eye-
witness is, therefore, speculative.
10.2 Second, the child was of a very tender age at the time
of the incident. More than seven years have elapsed
since then. Memory at such a young age is vulnerable
to distortion and external influence. The fact that the
child has been residing with her maternal
grandparents throughout this period raises a
reasonable apprehension of tutoring. This
significantly affects the reliability and evidentiary
value of her proposed testimony.
10.3 Third, the application under Section 311 CrPC was
filed after examination of 21 prosecution witnesses
and at an advanced stage of trial. Though the power
under Section 311 is wide, it is to be exercised
sparingly and only when the evidence sought is
indispensable for arriving at the truth. The present
case does not satisfy this requirement. Allowing the
examination of the child witness would only protract
the trial and cause prejudice to the accused.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the
High Court committed an error in law in setting aside
the order of the Trial Court and permitting the
examination of the minor witness.
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 6 of 7
12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
common order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by
the High Court is set aside. The order dated 30th
March, 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in
Sessions Case No. 22 of 2018 is restored.
13. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in
accordance with law.
……..…………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……..…………………………………..J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 19, 2025
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 7 of 7
2025 INSC 1475
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS…………………….OF 2025
@ SLP (CRL.) NOS.1167-1168/2025
MAYANKKUMAR NATWARLAL
KANKANA PATEL & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the common judgment and
order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal
Application No. 5648 of 2024 and Special Criminal
Application No. 10715 of 2024. By the impugned order,
the High Court set aside the order dated 30th March,
2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions
Case No. 22 of 2018 and allowed the application filed
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1
1973 , permitting the prosecution to examine the minor
Signature Not Verified
child, Aashvi, as a witness.
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.12.19
16:25:15 IST
Reason:
1
In short “CrPC”
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 1 of 7
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present
appeals are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant No.1 and the deceased were married in
the year 2010. A daughter, Aashvi, was born from the
wedlock in 2013. Respondent No. 2, the father of the
deceased, is the complainant who lodged a complaint
on 1st December, 2017, registered as FIR No. 224 of
2017, for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
306, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
2
Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3.2 The allegation in the FIR is that the complainant’s
daughter committed suicide on 5th November, 2017
by hanging herself with a dupatta. The FIR came to be
registered nearly one month after the incident. It was
alleged that the accused–appellants had subjected the
deceased to mental and physical cruelty in connection
with demands for money for purchase of a car, house,
and motorcycle. It was further alleged that Appellant
No. 1 had an extra-marital relationship, abused the
deceased verbally, and threatened her, thereby driving
her to commit suicide.
3.3 Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was
filed on 23rd February, 2018. Charges were framed,
and the trial commenced.
2
In short “IPC”
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 2 of 7
3.4 During the course of trial, after examination of 21
prosecution witnesses, the respondents filed an
application dated 6th September, 2023 under Section
311 CrPC seeking permission to examine the minor
daughter of the deceased, Aashvi, as a prosecution
witness. The application was founded on the assertion
that the child was present in the house at the time of
the incident. At the relevant time, the child was
approximately 4 years and 9 months old.
3.5 The Trial Court rejected the application. It held that at
no earlier stage had the complainant disclosed that
the minor child was present at the time of the incident.
The Trial Court noted that neither the FIR nor the
statements recorded during investigation, including
the complainant’s statement, contained any such
averment. It was further observed that despite a delay
of nearly one month in lodging the FIR, no such fact
was disclosed. Considering the tender age of the child
and the unexplained delay, the Trial Court declined to
permit her examination.
3.6 Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the
High Court.
4. The High Court, by the impugned common order,
allowed the petitions. The order of the Trial Court was
set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to
examine the minor witness. The High Court directed
the Trial Court to ensure adequate opportunity of
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 3 of 7
cross-examination to the defence and to take due care
of the mental and emotional well-being of the child
during deposition.
5. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the minor
could be treated as a material witness, and possibly an
eyewitness, having regard to Section 118 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It further observed that the
complainant had attempted to have the child’s
statement recorded during investigation but was
allegedly denied by the police. On these considerations,
the Trial Court’s order was interfered with. Aggrieved
thereby, the Appellants are before this Court.
6. We have heard Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, learned
counsel for the Appellants; Mr. Pradhuman Gohil,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 2–complainant;
and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the
Respondent–State.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the
child was only 4 years old at the time of the incident
and her statement was never recorded
contemporaneously. It was argued that the child is now
about 11 years old and has been residing with her
maternal grandparents since the incident. Given the
lapse of over seven years, it was contended that the
child cannot be expected to recall the incident reliably.
The possibility of tutoring was emphasized, particularly
in view of her prolonged separation from Appellant No.
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 4 of 7
1, her father. It was further urged that neither the FIR
nor any prosecution witness has stated that the child
was present at the time of the incident. According to the
Appellants, permitting her examination at this stage
would cause serious prejudice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents
submitted that attempts were made to have the child’s
statement recorded during investigation but were
ignored by the police. It was contended that the
application under Section 311 CrPC was moved to bring
the best available evidence on record and that the
testimony of the child is necessary for a just decision of
the case.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and examined
the record, we are of the considered view that the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the order of
the Trial Court. The respondents have failed to
establish that examination of the minor witness, at this
belated stage, is essential for the just decision of the
case.
10. Our conclusions rest on the following grounds:
10.1 First, there is no material on record to substantiate the
claim that the minor child was present at the time of
the incident. The FIR, statements recorded during
investigation, and the testimony of the complainant do
not disclose such presence. The reliance placed on a
statement made during re-examination of the
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 5 of 7
complainant does not establish that the child
witnessed the incident. At best, it suggests that the
child was in the house and not in the room where the
incident occurred. The assumption that she is an eye-
witness is, therefore, speculative.
10.2 Second, the child was of a very tender age at the time
of the incident. More than seven years have elapsed
since then. Memory at such a young age is vulnerable
to distortion and external influence. The fact that the
child has been residing with her maternal
grandparents throughout this period raises a
reasonable apprehension of tutoring. This
significantly affects the reliability and evidentiary
value of her proposed testimony.
10.3 Third, the application under Section 311 CrPC was
filed after examination of 21 prosecution witnesses
and at an advanced stage of trial. Though the power
under Section 311 is wide, it is to be exercised
sparingly and only when the evidence sought is
indispensable for arriving at the truth. The present
case does not satisfy this requirement. Allowing the
examination of the child witness would only protract
the trial and cause prejudice to the accused.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the
High Court committed an error in law in setting aside
the order of the Trial Court and permitting the
examination of the minor witness.
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 6 of 7
12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
common order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by
the High Court is set aside. The order dated 30th
March, 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in
Sessions Case No. 22 of 2018 is restored.
13. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in
accordance with law.
……..…………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……..…………………………………..J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 19, 2025
CRL. A……/2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.1167-1168/2025 Page 7 of 7