LI Network
Published on: 04 September 2023 at 12:38 IST
The Supreme Court has recently granted approval to a witness who sought to be reexamined under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This decision was made in light of the witness’s initial testimony, which lacked certain crucial details that became relevant after the examination of an expert witness.
The Court emphasized the necessity of invoking the power under Section 311 CrPC when it is crucial for a just decision in the case. It reaffirmed the established legal principle that this power should only be exercised for the sake of justice, and it should be exercised with care and prudence. Recall of a witness is not automatic, and the court’s discretion must be used judiciously to prevent miscarriages of justice.
The case, heard by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, concerned an appeal against a decision by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
The High Court had rejected the appellant’s request, made under Section 311 CrPC, to recall him for further examination as a witness.
In this case, the appellant had accused former employees of his company of stealing company data and using it to manufacture equipment similar to what his company produced.
The appellant’s evidence was recorded during the trial before the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chandigarh (CFSL) had completed its report. When the CFSL expert who prepared the report was examined, there was no reference to whether the data found on the accused’s hard disk(s) matched what was allegedly stolen from the appellant’s company. Consequently, the appellant applied to be recalled as a witness after the Trial Court and the High Court rejected his request.
The appellant’s counsel argued that there had been no opportunity during the trial to question the comparison of data, which was the crux of the complaint. Without this comparison, the trial would lose its substance.
In contrast, the respondents’ counsel contended that the appellant should not be allowed to rectify earlier omissions in the current stage of the proceedings.
The Court noted that the discretionary power under Section 311 of CrPC can only be exercised in the interest of justice and should not be used arbitrarily or capriciously.
The Court cited various precedents to emphasize that this power should be invoked to ensure a just decision and to prevent mistakes in bringing valuable evidence on record.
In this specific case, the Court found that the appellant’s request for recall was justified because, during his initial deposition, there was no opportunity for him to provide the relevant facts regarding data similarity, which became apparent after the CFSL expert’s examination.
The Court also believed that allowing the reexamination of the appellant would not prejudice respondents no.2 to 9, as they would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the appellant.
Consequently, the Court granted the appellant’s recall application and directed the trial Court to consider it within six weeks from the date of the order.
