S.311 CrPC | No Party In A Trial Can Be Foreclosed From Correcting Errors, Benefit Of Lacunae In Prosecution Case Must Go To Accused: Tripura HC

The Tripura High Court recently observed that the Court can allow an application filed by accused under Section 311 CrPC and exercise its power of re-summoning any witness, in order to meet the ends of justice.

Justice Amarnath Goud observed:

"Lacuna in 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 over sight 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 in-adventure, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified, more so, when the rights conferred by Constitution of India upon a citizen."

The Court was dealing with a revision petition preferred by State against an order of Sessions Judge, permitting recall of an eye-witness in a Murder case.

The defence sought to contradict certain statements made by the accused during his examination-in-chief on the strength of his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

The prosecution argued that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the lacuna also the examination of the witnesses cannot be an endless process. It was submitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 was on record and thus, recalling the witness for the purpose of contradiction will not serve any practical purpose.

The High Court was of the view that the accused persons should get a fair opportunity to the draw contradiction, as sought for.

The Court held that the very spirit of Section-311 of Cr.P.C. is to extend an opportunity for further re-examination or re-cross examination to either of the party if the same is essential to arrive at a just decision in the case.

In view of the same the petition was dismissed.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 37