S.311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Can Be Exercised Even After Case Reserved For Judgment: Andhra Pradesh High Court

In this regard, Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,

“… every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery of truth. The Court is not a mere spectator and is duty-bound to ensure that all material evidence necessary for a just decision is brought on record. The Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act are wide and can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including at the stage when the matter is reserved for judgment.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging an order of the Trial Court whereby, the Trial Judge had invoked its power under Section 311 to reopen a murder-trial after reserving it for judgment, and had directed the prosecution to mark hospital intimations and summon the Medical Officer as witness. At the initial stage, the petitioners– accused in the murder trial, were charged under Section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, however, on the death of the injured, the charges were altered to Section 302 r/w Section 34.

Challenging the invocation of powers under Section 311, the petitioners contended that reopening the matter after reserving it for judgment violates principles of fair trial, and that prosecution cannot fill up lacunae at such a belated stage.

In contrast, the State argued that in a case involving Section 302, IPC, examination of Medical Officer and marking of hospital records are essential to establish vital aspects relating to treatment and cause of death, and that the Court under Section 311, CrPC, has the power to summon or examine any person at any stage if evidence is warranted for a just decision.

Court's Findings:

The Court highlighted material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence regarding the hospital in which the deceased died and where the post-mortem was conducted, which had prompted the Trial Judge to invoke its powers under Section 311.

For instance– while several prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased succumbed to injuries at CMC Hospital, Vellore, the version of police authorities and medical testimony indicated that the death occurred at Vellore Medical College Hospital. Moreover, the prosecution had failed to mark hospital intimations, outpost police intimations, treatment case-sheets, and to examine the Medical Officer.

Noting that neither the Prosecution nor the defence counsel clarified the discrepancy with regard to the hospital, the Court held,

“It is also the duty of the defence counsel to confront the witnesses with their police statements so as to prove the contradictions in the form of material omissions and bring them on record. When the witnesses were deposing something contrary to what they had stated before the police in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to bring to the notice of the witnesses and confront them with the same even without declaring them as hostile. It is also the duty of the presiding officer to put relevant questions to those witnesses in exercise of his powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. Being a case of murder and as the evidence was not free from doubt, the Trial Judge ought to have acquainted himself, in the interest of justice, with the important material and also with what the only important witnesses of the prosecution had said during the police investigation. Nothing in Section 162 CrPC to prevent a Trial Judge, as distinct from the prosecution or the defence, from putting to prosecution witnesses the questions otherwise permissible, if the justice obviously demands such a course.”

The Court further noted that the IO had not only failed to establish a direct and proximate link between the injuries and the death, but had also not produced clear medical opinion, scientific analysis, or factual material to demonstrate that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that they materially contributed to the death.

Dismissing the petition, the Court noted that the Trial Judge had judiciously exercised powers under Section 311. It further directed the DGP to issue instructions to all IOs dealing with cases under 302 IPC/103 BNS to ensure – (i) all material facts and circumstances leading to the incident and the events preceding the death are thoroughly verified and placed on record, (ii) timely collection marking of hospital intimations and out-post police intimations, alongwith collection of complete medical records.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8982/2024

Case Title: SEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order