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 AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing principles on Section 311 CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether inherent power under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised to summon a minor witness at a late stage without prior record of her presence and with reliability risks. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | Established principle of sparing exercise of Section 311 CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to summon a minor witness at an advanced stage absent any prior record of her presence.
- Highlights the risk of memory distortion and tutoring when a very young witness is called years later.
- Confirms that inherent power under Section 311 must be exercised only when testimony is indispensable for justice.
- Emphasises potential prejudice to accused and undue trial prolongation as grounds for refusing belated witness summons.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- No material in FIR, investigation or initial testimony supports the presence of the child at the time of the incident—assumption of eye-witness status is speculative.
- The child’s tender age at incident and seven-year gap undermine reliability; long separation from accused raises tutoring risk.
- Though Section 311 CrPC confers wide power, it is to be used sparingly—only for evidence indispensable to arrive at truth; belated examination here would prejudice the accused and unduly prolong proceedings.
- High Court’s interference with Trial Court’s discretionary order was thus an error of law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- Child was under five at incident and now about 11; memory is unreliable after seven years.
- No mention of child’s presence in FIR or investigation; late application prejudices defence.
- Prolonged separation suggests tutoring; belated examination amounts to abuse of Section 311 power.
Respondent (Complainant & State)
- Attempts to record child’s statement during investigation were ignored by police.
- Child’s testimony is the best available evidence and necessary for a just decision.
Factual Background
In 2010 the deceased married Appellant No. 1 and bore a daughter in 2013. On 5 November 2017 the wife allegedly committed suicide; FIR was registered a month later under multiple IPC and Dowry Act offences. After charges and trial commenced, the prosecution sought in September 2023 under Section 311 CrPC to examine the then-minor daughter as a witness. The Trial Court refused for lack of prior disclosure and delay; the Gujarat High Court allowed; the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order, holding the belated summons unjustified.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 311 CrPC: confers wide but discretionary power to summon or recall any witness whose evidence is essential; to be exercised sparingly only when evidence is indispensable.
- Section 118, Evidence Act: minors are competent witnesses but reliability hinges on age and recollection; vulnerability to tutoring must be considered.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles on sparing exercise of Section 311 CrPC