[S. 311 CrPC] Trial Court Can Issue Summons Even On Plea Of Person Who Is 'Stranger To Trial': Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Trial Court can exercise power under Section 311 of CrPC not only on a plea by a party to the trial including accused, prosecution, complainant and witness or on its own volition, but also on a plea of a person "who is seemingly rank stranger to the trial."

According to Section 311, "any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "Whenever invocation of such power (under Section 311 CrPC) is sought for, at the instance of a person who is seemingly rank stranger/who is not a party to the trial; such criminal trial Court ought to exercise its powers with a much higher degree of circumspection. It goes without saying that according of cogent and convincing reason(s) would be a condition precedent to exercise of such power."

These observations were made while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the order passed by Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Punjab whereby an application filed by relatives of an alleged victim in a rape case, under Section 311 of CrPC for re-examining the victim was dismissed.

An FIR was registered in a rape case under Sections 376, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67-B of the I.T. Act.

It was stated that the investigation was carried out and challan was presented against the accused persons. During the course of trial proceedings, it was stated that testimony of the complainant (mother of the victim) was recorded and the said witness was declared hostile by the public prosecutor.

Similarly, it was stated that the statement of victim was recorded but she was also declared hostile. Thereafter, it was submitted that an application under Section 311 of the CrPC on behalf of the petitioners for re-examining of victim was filed by her relatives and the same was rejected.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referring to High Court's decision in Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, said that it irresistibly reflects that a criminal trial Court may exercise these powers on its own volition or an application made by a party to the trial in question i.e. the accused, prosecution, complainant as also the victim.

Justice Goel said, that a deeper critical analysis of the words used by the legislature while enacting Section 311 of CrPC, does not show that such power cannot be invoked by any other person including a person seeming to be a rank stranger to the trial.

"In other words; the provisions, when construed in light of salutary objective which it thrives to achieve, unequivocally exhibits that criminal trial Court is well within its power to invoke Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the asking of any person whosoever provided such evidence appears to be essential to just decision of the case.," added the Court.

The judge further explained that although there is no impediment, statutory or otherwise, in the trial Court invoking its power under Section 311 of CrPC on an oral plea at the instance of any person, it would be a pragmatic approach if such a person causes an application to be moved in this regard.

In the present case, the Court observed that there is no dispute that, in view of the above-said discussion, any person is entitled to seek the intervention of a Court in terms of the powers of such Court under Section 311 of CrPC However, the locus standi of the petitioners with the trial in question is marred by doubt and suspicion.

It added that "no plausible reason is coming forward as to why the victim and/or the complainant (mother of the victim) have not come forward to file any application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. From the factual matrix of the present case; no impediment has been shown in the way of complainant (mother of the victim) and/or victim in making such a plea before the trial Court."

The Court noted that by way of the application in question, a re-examination of only the victim has been sought for whereas there is no prayer for the re-examination of the mother of the victim (complainant) who had also been declared to be a hostile witness on the same day when the victim had been declared to be hostile.

Justice Goel found that both the complainant and the victim were examined during the trial proceedings. Specific questions were posed to them by the trial court regarding the truthfulness, voluntariness, and absence of pressure in their statements, to which they responded affirmatively.

 In light of the above, the Court opined that there was no error in the order rejecting the plea for re-examination of the victim.

Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG Punjab.

Nitin Rathor, Advocate for respondent No.2.

K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. 

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 112