S.311 CrPC Confers Power To Examine Witnesses At Any Stage Of Trial: Calcutta HC Asks Trial Court To Consider Plea Of Alibi After Closing Of Evidence

The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that powers under Section 311 of CrPC have been conferred upon the Court to serve the ends of justice and may be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding for reaching to a just decision.

Accordingly, it proceeded to allow the petitioners in the present murder case to adduce evidence on their plea of alibi after closing of evidence.

Essentially, Section 311 of CrPC deals with the power of the Court to summon any material witness or examine any person present at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding for the purpose of reaching a just decision. 

Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed, 

"One cannot be oblivious of the fact that when a substantial legal right is claimed by the litigants, the court has to consider its implication and to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously for meeting the ends of justice...their plea of alibi needs to be admitted in evidence if they are in a position to adduce substantive evidence on that count and stand the test of cross-examination. Denial of such right would lead to miscarriage of justice."

Opining on the necessity to allow the plea of alibi, the Court underscored further, 

"Whatever the outcome of the case may be, on consideration of the totality of the evidence together with its trustworthiness, I am of the view that the petitioners who raised a question of being away at the time the incident of fire, should get an opportunity to examine relevant witness and prove the documents they are relying upon. End of justice would be served if the petitioner witness proving such documents for the purpose of admission, stands the test of cross-examination for which prosecution will not suffer any prejudice. "

Accordingly, the impugned order of the trial court dismissing such an application under Section 311 CrPC was set aside. 

Background 

The instant revision petition had been filed challenging the order dated January 6, 2020 issued by the concerned Sessions Court rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners under Section 311 CrPC. The petitioners who are the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased are facing trial for the offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 302 (murder) of the IPC. 

In the instant case, one Papia Saha (the deceased), daughter of the de-facto complainant Swapan Kumar Sen had been married to one Haradhan Saha in the year 1995. Initially the de-facto complainant and his family did not recognise the marriage between the Papia and Haradhan Saha as it was an outcome of a love affair. However, the family accepted the marriage after 7 to 8 months. 

The deceased subsequently gave birth to a son and a daughter and used to reside along with her husband, the petitioners and her mother-in-law. With time, the petitioners and the mother-in-law used to inflict physical and mental torture upon the deceased on demand of dowry. 

On December 10, 20211, the father of the deceased had received information from his granddaughter that the deceased had been set ablaze inside a room and subsequently rushed to their house. The deceased was thereafter admitted to CMRI Hospital Calcutta where she breathed her last on December 14, 2011. Consequently, a case was registered against the petitioners.

Before the trial Court, the petitioners had deposed that on the day of the alleged incident they were were not present at the place of occurrence as both of them were attending a medical camp at 'SAAOL' under Dr. Bimal Chhajer. However, during the entirety of the trial, the petitioners had not adduced any evidence to establish their alibi. When the case was fixed up for pronouncing of judgment, the petitioners on January 6, 2020 had moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking permission to produce evidence to substantiate their alibi. 

However, the trial Court had rejected such an application under Section 313 CrPC on the ground that it was for the purpose of filling up of lacuna in the case of the defence and that it would caused serious prejudice to the prosecution, especially when the petitioner did not file the relevant evidence till the conclusion of arguments. 

 Observations 

The Court noted that the petitioners had moved the application under Section 311 CrPC at a belated stage after closure of evidence. Opining further on the purpose behind incorporation of Section 311 CrPC, the Court observed, 

"The provisions of section 311 of Cr. P.C. is therefore to meet exigency situation. It vests a court of law with the power to examine witnesses at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding for reaching to a just decision."

The Court further noted that such a plea of alibi had also been disclosed by the petitioners during the cross examination of two other witnesses. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in V. N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar and Ors and accordingly opined that the principal object of Section 311 CrPC is to meet the ends of justice and to ensure that no hardship and prejudice is caused to the accused or to the prosecution.

Thus, the Court observed that it would be appropriate to allow the petitioners to adduce evidence under Section 311 CrPC and proceeded to set aside the impugned order. However, it was underscored that the evidentiary value of such evidence and its credibility are different aspects which shall have to be considered at the time of final adjudication by weighing the totality of evidence.

 Setting aside the impugned order, the Court observed, 

"In view of my above discussion I find and hold that impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety so far as the exercise of discretionary power by the jurisdictional court is concerned while dealing with such a vital question which had been earlier disclose by the petitioners during cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-3. Learned Jurisdictional court after providing opportunity to the petitioners to adduce necessary evidence under section 311 of Cr. P.C within a reasonable time shall dispose of the case as early as possible."

Case Title: Uttam Saha & Anr v. State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 28

Click Here To Read/Download Order