Court’s Power Is Couched In Widest Terms Possible With No Express Limitation: SC Explains Principles Governing Section 311 CrPC
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeals of an accused against the Allahabad High Court's Judgment, confirming capital punishment imposed on him.
The Supreme Court has explained certain principles governing the application of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which empowers the Courts to summon material witnesses or examine persons present in the Court.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which capital punishment imposed on him was confirmed.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the following principles governing Section 311 CrPC –
(a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’.
(b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon.
(c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice.
(d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be improper.
(e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other.
(f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of the application of a judicial mind.
(g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross examination. This power arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, in 2014, the Appellant-accused returned home in an inebriated state, also carrying two bottles of liquor which he then consumed along with his father. Sometime later, a quarrel ensued between them which led to the accused allegedly slapping his father, who was, as a result, injured in his ear. Thereafter, he allegedly demanded money from his wife to procure more liquor which she denied. As such, he allegedly trashed, abused, and eventually killed her.
He also allegedly killed his daughter who was twelve years old and resultantly, an FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted the accused of having committed a double murder and imposed the sentence of death by hanging qua Section 302 IPC and seven-year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and hence, challenging the same, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is important to restate the purpose of trial. A trial, of course, is a fact-finding exercise wherein both parties, i.e., the prosecution and defence, after investigation by the competent authorities, present their versions of events and the role and duty of the Court to determine the truth. While undertaking such determination, the Court is not only to look at the evidence at hand but also ensure that all consideration balances the demand for justice and the rights of the accused.”
The Court said that this case raises questions of compliance with various basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law.
“In a criminal trial, unless the law otherwise requires, the onus of proof never shifts. It is always on the prosecution. The job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is, that of an officer of the Court. The prosecuting agency carries the role, primarily, till the time the matter enters the Court. They have a responsibility to examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof”, it further noted.
The Court said that the Indian Criminal Justice System places the accused person at a comparative disadvantage which is more so exacerbated when the person is economically or socially less fortunate as in this case. It added that the Supreme Court through various judicial pronouncements has underscored and strengthened the rights of a person accused of committing a crime in order to ensure that the Constitutional guarantee of Justice sees the light of the day.
“What rights of an accused being codified in the Rome Statute signifies is that even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone’s life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as ‘convicted of an offence’, is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process”, it also remarked.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the death sentence, and remanded the case to the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 225)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, AOR Aditya Verma, Advocates Aatma Sudhir Kumar, Mangesh Naik, K Rigved Prasad, Parkhi Rai, and Samar Singh.
Respondent: AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocates Divyesh Pratap Singh, and Abhinav Singh.
