The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the determinative factor for exercising the discretionary power vested upon the court under section 311 Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is essential to the just decision of the case.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner alleged that the witnesses were examined and they were neither declared hostile by the prosecution nor the prosecution cross-examined them. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Then, the evidence of the defense was closed and the matter was fixed for the judgment. However, the informant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for examination of the three witnesses and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I allowed the said application. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner filed the present Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the order passed is very vague and cryptic and doesn’t disclose the names of the witnesses or the purpose of their examination. It was furthermore submitted that the trial court failed to consider the matter of delay and the harassment caused to the witnesses.
The petitioner relied upon the judgment titled State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the power granted to a court by Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to be used arbitrarily; rather, the court must use its discretion carefully and wisely in order to avoid the failure of justice.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another.
The court noted that by ordering the prosecution to produce all witnesses and without specifying which witnesses or why they are to be questioned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge crossed illegality. This is especially true when the witnesses were not physically present in court to give testimony.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not sustainable in law, and the same being cryptic, vague, and non-speaking order and being not in accordance with law is quashed and set aside.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case title: Mritunjay Kumar Poddar @ Mritunjay Kumar @ Mritunjay Poddar Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case no.: Cr.M.P. No. 833 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
