High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/28568/2020disposed of

Gulab v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2023-02-16Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta12 pages

!"#$%$& '

(

) * +, ( -+ .

/0.

1 * 2

!" ## $% & ' 2

#13 '4 (' '

" + #

, - . /

0 1'

# 2

3) ) 4 5

72 8 *, - -

)

,9 9,* 2

,--

# "

72 +

(

8 , -; < -

# "

- -

. /

= - 5 &

> 8 ,9)8$9 8 9 -

%1? > 8 ,<9 )8$9 8 9 -

(

%2) @ #

A ' 8B

%1 8 ,*<

-9 <9 -

* < - , 1

1' '

* 2 1' >

$ )

% ' >

%1 (

-; < -

( $ C@

%2) @ A '

1 / D 1

"' 1

" $ $

$ ' 5

%2) @

# - < - * < -

%2) @

' "

: 2

,--

: /"

' #

8 ,

)

8 - 1"

1' 1

) ; 2

,--

< 1

)

F"'G .

0 ""

# ""

' 1

1' ' #

- B

FG ""

-- 1

1' & 61 )

# $ %&' '&'' !$(( '&'')* +%'', '&''

&-&-'&''

' #

# B

! ""

G C '

" #

B #

' 1

1 #

' - 2 1

+ 1

1' & 61 )

: )

" 1

)

: H '

-, 2 / 011 2

3 *'&&4+ 5( & 61 )

= !27. The object underlying )

,-- 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. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In )

,-- the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be

exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind."

-* & 61 )

= 44. The power of the court under Section 165of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e.: (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. Though the discretion given to the court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohanlal v.

Union of India this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the words such as, ―any court, ―at any stage, or ―any enquiry or trial or other proceedings, ―any person and ―any such person clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the widest- possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisionsof the Code.

The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case, "essential" to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate.

irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311but only to sub-serve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.

- # #

' @

& 61 )

/ 011 2.

)

6 7) *'&&-+&-

' 1

,-- "

' 1

' 1 1

= !28. The court is not empowered under the provisions

to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses ;

as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be "filling of loopholes". That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge."

- 2 83 % *,,,+4& 1

1' & 61 )

= !8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better." -;

" 1

+& 61

)

# #

*'&,+ ('-

= !11. It is well settled that the power conferred under )

,-- should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The

power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision." - B 1

' "

' #

1 1 2 1

1' & 61 )

/ 011 2.

B '

# 1' B '

' 1 #

' "

B "

# # '

1 '

# # ' B

' "

1 '

: ' "

# # '

-< !

1 #

,--

> 1

' ""

# ""

1 "

' 2 @

, 2

> A '

# "1

$ C@

1' @ #

- #

,-- "

@ # ""

# B

# #

' 1

, +

, - . /

1' B

!"#$%$& 3 2

@ #= I 98

1 = I 98