Supreme Court allows summoning of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC for second post-mortem in dowry death case: V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar & Ors (2021) INSC 122 (04 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 122
Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a trial court summon witnesses to examine a second post-mortem report, even if those witnesses were not part of the original investigation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a dowry death, clarifying the scope of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment emphasizes the court’s power to ensure a just decision, even if it means bringing in additional evidence at a later stage of the trial. The judgment was authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Indu Malhotra concurring.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Keerthi, who was married to the first respondent on 17th February 2002. She died under unnatural circumstances on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd April 2004, in Bangalore. The appellant, Keerthi’s father, filed a complaint leading to the registration of a case under Sections 302 (murder) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence related to a second post-mortem conducted in Mumbai. The trial court allowed this, but the High Court reversed the decision. The Supreme Court then heard the matter.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court allowed the prosecution’s application under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon witnesses related to the second post-mortem. The High Court, however, set aside the trial court’s order without providing substantial reasoning. The High Court’s decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on Section 311 of the CrPC, which states:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present —Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine 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.”

This section grants the court the power to summon witnesses at any stage of a trial if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The court noted that this power is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously to ensure that justice is served.

Arguments

The respondents argued that the witnesses the prosecution wanted to summon were not part of the original investigation. They claimed that the second post-mortem was a result of a private investigation by the deceased’s family and that the application was an attempt to fill gaps in the investigation after a prosecution witness turned hostile. The respondents also questioned the relevance and impact of the second post-mortem.

The prosecution contended that the second post-mortem was not a private investigation because it was conducted through the Worli Police in Mumbai. They also pointed out that the investigating officer had corresponded with the Mumbai police and doctors to obtain the report, indicating that it was part of the investigation. The prosecution argued that the evidence was crucial, especially since the doctor who conducted the first post-mortem had turned hostile.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to several cases to explain the scope of Section 311 CrPC:

• Vijay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2011(8) SCC 136]: The Supreme Court of India held that the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC should be used judiciously for the ends of justice.
• Mannan Shaikh and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Another [2014(13) SCC 59]: The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice.
• Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat and Others [2017(9) SCC 340]: The Supreme Court of India emphasized that the power under this section has to be exercised after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2019(14) SCC 328]: The Supreme Court of India clarified that the court has wide powers to recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, but this power should not be used as an abuse of the process of law.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair trial and discovering the truth. The Court emphasized that Section 311 CrPC is a tool to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The fact that the first post-mortem doctor turned hostile and the second post-mortem was conducted through police channels weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to allow the additional evidence. The Court also noted that the trial court had assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application, which the High Court failed to consider.

The Court’s sentiment analysis reveals that the factual aspects of the case, particularly the circumstances surrounding the two post-mortems and the hostility of the first doctor, weighed more heavily than the legal considerations. This indicates a focus on the specific facts to ensure a just outcome.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the trial court’s role in ensuring a just decision. The Court noted that the trial court had assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC, which the High Court failed to consider. The Court stated:

“The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side.”

The Court further added:

“The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case.”

The Supreme Court also observed:

“At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.”

The Court held that the High Court had erred in setting aside the trial court’s order without considering the factual matrix and the reasons provided by the trial court. The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s decision was in line with the objectives of Section 311 CrPC, which is to ensure that all necessary evidence is brought before the court to facilitate a just decision.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts have the power to summon witnesses at any stage of a trial under Section 311 CrPC if their evidence is essential for a just decision.
• ✓ The fact that a witness was not part of the original investigation is not a bar to summoning them under Section 311 CrPC.
• ✓ The power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised judiciously and for valid reasons, particularly when it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
• ✓ The trial court’s reasoning should be carefully considered by appellate courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the pending trial at the earliest, in compliance with its order dated 3rd September 2016.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the wide scope of Section 311 CrPC, emphasizing that it is a tool to ensure the discovery of truth and prevent a miscarriage of justice. It clarifies that courts have the power to summon witnesses even if they were not part of the original investigation, provided their evidence is essential for a just decision. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough trial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of Section 311 CrPC in ensuring a fair trial. The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s order without proper reasoning. The Supreme Court allowed the summoning of witnesses related to the second post-mortem, emphasizing that the court’s primary goal is to discover the truth and prevent a miscarriage of justice. The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a thorough and just trial process.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Child Category: Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Child Category: Section 6, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Evidence
Child Category: Witness Summons
Child Category: Post-Mortem
Child Category: Dowry Death

FAQ

Q: What is Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: Section 311 of the CrPC allows a court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any witness at any stage of a trial if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

Q: Can a court summon witnesses who were not part of the original investigation?
A: Yes, the court can summon such witnesses if their testimony is crucial for a just decision, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

Q: What happens if a witness turns hostile during a trial?
A: If a witness turns hostile, the court may summon additional witnesses or evidence to ensure the truth is discovered and justice is served. This is what happened in the present case where the first post-mortem doctor turned hostile.

Q: What is the significance of a second post-mortem in a criminal case?
A: A second post-mortem can provide additional medical evidence and insights, especially if there are doubts or discrepancies in the first post-mortem report. It is particularly important in cases where the cause of death is disputed.

Q: What should a trial court consider when deciding whether to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 CrPC?
A: The trial court should consider whether the additional evidence is essential for a just decision and whether it will help in discovering the truth. The court should also ensure that the power is exercised judiciously and not to abuse the process of law.