Fair Trial Can Be Ensured By Allowing Additional Documentary Evidence Even After Conclusion Of Evidence U/S 311 R/W S.91 CrPC: Jharkhand HC

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court while granting permission for the submission of additional documentary evidence in a case pertaining to the dishonour of a cheque ruled that while Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly address the addition of documentary evidence when read in conjunction with Section 91, additional documentary evidence can be submitted to ensure a fair trial and reach a just decision even after the conclusion of evidence.

Justice Subhash Chand observed “The very purpose of this Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure the fair trial which is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even if there is no specific provision in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in regard to adducing the documentary evidence; but reading Section 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. simultaneously to ensure the fair trial the documentary evidence may also be adduced even after conclusion of the evidence so as to give the just decision of the case.”

The petitioner-complainant initiated proceedings against accused Aryan Kumar Jaiswal for dishonouring a cheque issued to establish a medicine business.

During the complaint case, the complainant presented their evidence. Subsequently, the accused's statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Following this, the accused testified in their defence, stating that his sister's marriage was cancelled in Hyderabad. He informed the complainant about this in October 2015 and requested the return of the cheque, which was allegedly kept in the complainant's office. Despite repeated demands, the cheque was not returned, as the sister's marriage was rescheduled for December 6, 2015.

To counter this claim made by the accused during his testimony, the complainant applied to the court to submit a copy of the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The accused objected to this application.

After hearing arguments from both parties' counsels, the trial court issued an order rejecting the complainant's application. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner/complainant filed a Criminal Revision petition, asserting that the trial court's order was bad in the eye of the law.

It was contended that the court trial had erred in holding that the said application was not maintainable at that stage after completion of the evidence of the complainant and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also the conclusion of the evidence of defence and the impugned order passed by the court-below holding that the complainant cannot be permitted to rebut the evidence adduced by the accused in defence by way of moving application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with a view to adduce the documentary evidence.

The Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner on the very ground that in view of the provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., only the witnesses can be examined, re-examined or cross-examined. There is no provision in regard to adduce any documentary evidence. The said contention of learned Counsel of the Respondent is not found tenable.

In its ruling, the Court observed, “The learned trial court by passing the impugned order has rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the complainant cannot be permitted to rebut the evidence adduced in defence after concluding his evidence, the same finding is found perverse and the same order needs interference,” the Court asserted while allowing the petition.

The Court proceeded to allow the petition, setting aside the impugned order issued by the lower court. Additionally, the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/complainant was granted, and the documents submitted by the petitioner/complainant were admitted into the record.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate

Case No.: Cr. Rev. No. 980 of 2023

Case Title: Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement