Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision on Witness Re-examination in Criminal Case: Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Ors (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 772

Judges: J. Chelameswar, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a witness retract their testimony months after giving it, claiming police influence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the scope of witness re-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court examined whether a trial court was correct in rejecting the re-examination plea of two witnesses who sought to change their statements after a considerable delay. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a criminal matter where a charge sheet was filed against Prahlad Jat and others under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, 28 witnesses were examined. Two of these witnesses, Sawarmal (PW4) and Chandri (PW5), had initially supported the prosecution’s case. However, after a significant delay, they applied to the Sessions Judge under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to be re-examined. They claimed that their earlier statements were made under police influence and that the accused had no role in the incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge dismissed the applications of PW4 and PW5, noting that 28 witnesses had already been examined and cross-examined, and that the applications appeared to be an attempt to favor the accused. The accused then filed a petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, which allowed the applications of PW4 and PW5, setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order. The appellant, the paternal brother of the deceased and a prosecution witness, then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section 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.”

The Supreme Court also considered the concept of locus standi in criminal proceedings, referring to several precedents.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that PW4 and PW5 were examined and cross-examined at length, and their applications for re-examination were filed after a significant delay, with the intention of helping the accused.
• The appellant contended that the witnesses had supported the prosecution’s case during police investigation and initial examination, and no valid reason was given for their change of stance.
• The appellant stated that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s reasoned order.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 4 argued that the appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal.
• Respondent No. 4 contended that the Sessions Judge has ample power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to examine or re-examine any witness to bring on record the best possible evidence to meet the ends of justice.
• Respondent No. 3 supported the appellant’s case.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the authorities to establish the following:

• A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. [(1984) 2 SCC 500]* and Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand & Ors. [(2001) 5 SCC 407]*: These cases were used to establish that anyone can set the criminal law in motion, and the concept of locus standi is not a bar in criminal jurisprudence.
• Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr. [(1979) 2 SCC 297]* and P.S.R Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. [(1980) 3 SCC 141]*: These cases were used to explain the Supreme Court’s plenary power under Article 136 of the Constitution and that it can interfere in suitable cases where there is a miscarriage of justice.
• Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. [(2003) 12 SCC 395]* and Esher Singh v. State of A.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 585]*: These cases supported the view that the Supreme Court can entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of interested parties.
• Amanullah and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [(2016) 6 SCC 699]*: This case was used to emphasize that an aggrieved party cannot be left to the mercy of the State to file an appeal.
• Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2011) 8 SCC 136]*, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 374]*, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. [(2016) 2 SCC 402]*: These cases were used to explain the scope and ambit of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and that the power to re-examine witnesses should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
• Umar Mohammad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 14 SCC 711]*: This case was used to highlight that delay in filing an application for re-examination is a significant factor that needs to be explained.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The significant delay in filing the applications for re-examination by PW4 and PW5, which was 14 months after their initial testimonies.
• The lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.
• The fact that the witnesses had previously supported the prosecution’s case during the police investigation and their initial examination.
• The Sessions Judge’s finding that the witnesses were not under any pressure when they gave their initial testimonies.
• The Court’s observation that the applications appeared to be an attempt to favor the accused.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in allowing the re-examination of PW4 and PW5. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court also noted that the witnesses’ applications for re-examination were filed after a significant delay without a valid explanation, and that they appeared to be an attempt to favor the accused.

The Court quoted:

“The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.”

“Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice.”

“The delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application.”

The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter without taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the order of the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• The power to re-examine witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously.
• Applications for re-examination must be made without undue delay and with a valid explanation for any delay.
• Courts should be cautious about allowing re-examination of witnesses who have previously supported the prosecution’s case, especially if the application appears to be an attempt to favor the accused.
• The Supreme Court can interfere in cases where there is a miscarriage of justice, even if the appeal is filed by a private party.

Directions

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter without considering the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the High Court’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power to re-examine witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously. The Court reinforced the principle that applications for re-examination must be made without undue delay and with a valid explanation for any delay. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a trial court can reject a witness’s application for re-examination, especially when the witness has previously supported the prosecution’s case and seeks to change their testimony after a significant delay.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Ors. clarifies the scope and limitations of witness re-examination under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that while the power to re-examine witnesses is essential for ensuring justice, it must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the re-examination plea of two witnesses who sought to change their statements after a considerable delay, thereby reinforcing the importance of timely and consistent testimonies in criminal proceedings.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Category: Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Witness Examination

FAQ

Q: What is Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.?

A: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows a court to summon, examine, or re-examine any witness at any stage of a trial to ensure a just decision.

Q: Can a witness change their statement during a trial?

A: Yes, a witness can seek to change their statement, but the court has the discretion to allow or reject such requests based on the circumstances, including the reasons for the change and any delay.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies that the power to re-examine witnesses is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously. It also emphasizes that delays in seeking re-examination and lack of valid reasons can lead to the rejection of such requests.

Q: What should a witness do if they feel they gave a statement under pressure?

A: A witness who feels they gave a statement under pressure should inform the court as soon as possible with a valid explanation for the delay to ensure their testimony is accurate and voluntary.

Q: Does this judgment affect the rights of the accused?

A: This judgment does not affect the rights of the accused. It ensures that the trial process is fair and that re-examination of witnesses is not used to unduly delay or manipulate the proceedings.