Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005620-005621 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 3634/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s refusal to permit examination of a minor child under Section 311 CrPC at an advanced stage of the trial, absent any material establishing her presence or indispensability of her testimony? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court applied Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (on competence of witnesses) and emphasized the discretionary and sparing use of Section 311 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant’s daughter committed suicide in November 2017; FIR No. 224/2017 under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 IPC and Sections 3 & 7 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered one month later. After 21 prosecution witnesses, an application under Section 311 sought to examine the then-minor daughter (aged 4 years 9 months). The Trial Court refused; the High Court allowed. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court reaffirms that Section 311 CrPC is a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly and only when evidence is indispensable.
- Belated applications to summon minor witnesses require contemporaneous records establishing presence at the incident.
- Tender age and long interval (over seven years) diminish a child’s memory reliability and raise a risk of tutoring.
- Absence of any mention in the FIR or investigation statements about a minor’s presence is fatal to a belated Section 311 application.
- This judgment is binding authority for objections to late-stage witness summons where reliability and indispensability are not demonstrated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- No Material Showing Presence
The FIR, police statements, and complainant’s evidence did not disclose that the minor was an eyewitness; reliance on a re-examination remark was speculative. - Unreliable Memory & Tutoring Risk
A four-year-old’s memory over a seven-year lapse is vulnerable; continued separation and residence with maternal grandparents give rise to a reasonable apprehension of tutoring. - Section 311 CrPC Discretion
Although wide, this power must be used sparingly. After 21 prosecution witnesses, the child’s evidence was not shown to be indispensable and would protract proceedings and prejudice the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The child was only about 4 years old at the time and is now 11; her memory cannot be expected to be reliable after seven years.
- No contemporaneous statement or FIR averment indicates her presence during the incident.
- Prolonged separation from her father and residence with maternal grandparents raises a risk of tutoring.
- Permitting her examination at this stage would prejudice the accused and protract the trial.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant):
- Attempts were made during investigation to record the child’s statement but were ignored by police.
- Section 311 application was filed to bring the best available evidence on record.
- The child’s testimony is necessary for just disposal of the case.
Factual Background
The appellants’ daughter committed suicide in November 2017, and FIR No. 224/2017 was registered under various IPC sections and the Dowry Prohibition Act a month later. A chargesheet was filed in February 2018, and the trial began. After 21 prosecution witnesses, the complainant applied under Section 311 CrPC (September 2023) to examine the then-minor daughter (aged around 4 years 9 months). The Trial Court rejected the application due to absence of any prior disclosure and the child’s tender age; the Gujarat High Court set aside that order and permitted the examination. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the Trial Court’s order, and held the belated application unjustified.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 311 CrPC: The Court reiterated that its wide discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses must be exercised sparingly, only when the evidence is indispensable to the just decision of the case.
- Section 118 Indian Evidence Act: The Court noted that competence does not guarantee reliability; a minor’s testimony depends on memory and absence of tutoring.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles on Section 311 CrPC discretion and child-witness reliability were reaffirmed.