UBER Case; Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses; SC issues Guidelines relating to re-examination of Witnesses [Read the Judgment]

A two Judge bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice J S Khehar and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel yesterday set aside the order of Delhi High Court which permitted the accused to re-examine Twelve prosecution witnesses, including the victim girl in the sensational UBER rape Case. [See the LiveLaw report here]In the Judgment Justice Goel had elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.“The accused is entitled to be represented by a counsel of his choice, to be provided all relevant documents, to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. The object of provision for recall is to reserve the power with the court to prevent any injustice in the conduct of the trial at any stage. The power available with the court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the Court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party.Such a finding, with reasons, must be specifically recorded by the court before the power is exercised. It is not possible to lay down precise situations when such power can be exercised. The Legislature in its wisdom has left the power undefined. Thus, the scope of the power has to be considered from case to case”. The Bench said.The Court relied on another Two Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar in which the principles relating to S.311 Cr.P.C were summarised as follows;a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that 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.k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional...

UBER Case; Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses; SC issues Guidelines relating to re-examination of Witnesses [Read the Judgment]

M.A.Rashid

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

M.A.Rashid

UBER Case; Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses; SC issues Guidelines relating to re-examination of Witnesses [Read the Judgment]

M.A.Rashid

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

M.A.Rashid

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers