The Supreme Court recently cautioned the trial courts to proceed with alacrity during trial, especially when there is a total failure of the prosecution for not conducting examination of the crucial witnesses.

“…when there is total failure of the prosecution, the Court should with alacrity question the prosecution's conduct in not examining crucial witnesses. The Trial Court is not a moot spectator and even in the role of an unbiased adjudicator has the responsibility to ensure that the best evidence is not suppressed by the prosecution…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the Patna High Court and Trial Court's order rejecting the de-facto complainant Section 311 Cr.P.C. application seeking examination of the crucial witness which could have a direct impact on the outcome of the trial.

The case arose from an altercation in which the appellant and his father sustained injuries.

According to the prosecution, Accused No. 1 allegedly attacked the appellant's father with a spear, while Accused Nos. 3 and 4 allegedly assaulted him with an iron rod. Accused No. 2 was alleged to have struck the appellant on the head with a sword.

After investigation, however, charges were framed only against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, while the charges against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were dropped.

The trial commenced in 2017 and had reached an advanced stage when the appellant moved an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon a new witness seeking examination of crucial witnesses.

These included his injured father, the doctor who had medically examined the injured persons and the Investigating Officer.

Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected the application, treating it as an attempt to delay the trial and fill gaps in the evidence already recorded.

Aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the injured.

Allowing the appeal, the Court observed that the courts below erred in rejecting the Appellant's Section 311 application, as absence of examination of the crucial witnesses would have resulted in an acquittal as a result of shoddy prosecution carried during the trial.

“…we would not have entertained the application under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, however, in the present case, what is projected is a clear failure of the prosecution to properly conduct the trial. The appellant and his father were injured in the incident. The father was not examined and the other witnesses sought to be examined are the Doctor, who attended to the injured and the Investigating Officer; crucial witnesses. The absence of whom could lead to even an acquittal for reason of the shoddy prosecution carried out on the allegation of lacunae being attempted to be plugged; it is the prosecution that proffers witnesses in a trial and here, the failure is pointed out by the de-facto complainant.”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appellant's application under Section 311 CrPC was allowed with a direction to the trial court to permit the examination of the injured witness, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer.

The Court also directed that the accused's examination under Section 313 CrPC should recommence from the stage at which it had been stopped. This would ensure that any incriminating circumstances emerging from the evidence of the newly examined witnesses are put to the accused.

Cause Title: Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Adv. Mr. Suyash Rawat, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi, Adv.

Related: Trial Court Must Proactively Participate In Trial To Ensure Relevant Fact Isn't Left Out : Supreme Court

'Trial Judge Shouldn't Be A Mute Spectator; Has Duty To Ask Crucial Questions' : Supreme Court While Setting Aside Conviction In Murder Case