Section 311 CrPC cannot justify belated witness examination that indefinitely delays trial.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 10 December 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2016, arising from Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 142 of 2004, registered under Sections 376, 312, 313, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking examination of the Medical Officer who had examined the victim and the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC.

The application was filed when the case was pending at the stage of final arguments.

The trial court noted that the prosecution evidence had already been closed, the accused had been examined, defence evidence had concluded, and the matter had remained pending for several years.

The State opposed the application on the grounds that sufficient opportunity had already been granted, the matter had been pending at the argument stage for approximately eight years, and the doctor’s correct address had not been furnished.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recall or summon the Medical Officer and the Judicial Magistrate under Section 311 CrPC at the stage of final arguments?

Whether allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC was necessary for the just decision of the case, or would instead result in indefinite delay of the trial?

Section 311 CrPC empowers a criminal court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon or examine any person as a witness, or recall and re-examine a witness already examined, where the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case.

The power is intended to advance the cause of justice and is not an unrestricted entitlement of a party to reopen evidence or delay proceedings.

The court applied the principle that Section 311 CrPC must be exercised judicially, with regard to the necessity of the proposed evidence, the stage of the proceeding, the prior opportunities available to the applicant, and the need to prevent abuse of process or undue delay.

The High Court accepted that Section 311 CrPC is directed toward ensuring the just decision of a case; however, it held that the provision does not authorise the informant to delay the trial indefinitely, particularly when the matter had reached the final stage of arguments.

The record showed that the prosecution had already concluded its evidence, the accused had been examined, defence evidence had also concluded, and the case had remained pending for several years.

The Court further noted that the application did not adequately explain the necessity for summoning the proposed witnesses at that late stage and that the correct address of the doctor had not been supplied.

In these circumstances, the High Court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the application was intended to prolong the proceedings rather than facilitate the just adjudication of the case.

The Court directed the trial court to conclude the case within two months from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order, since the matter had already remained pending at the stage of arguments for approximately eight years.