Date of the Judgment: September 29, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 887
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Can a trial court summon a witness to verify a document crucial to the case, even if the accused objects? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of rape, where the age of the victim was a key factor. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to summon a witness to verify the victim’s Class X mark sheet, emphasizing the importance of ensuring all relevant evidence is considered in a criminal trial. This judgment was authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Case Background
The case began with a criminal complaint filed by the appellant, Ritu Rai, at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The complaint, registered as Crime No. 1592 of 2016, accused the respondent no. 2 of offences under Sections 328, 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These sections relate to causing hurt by means of poison, rape, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation, respectively. The case was registered against respondent no.2.
Following the registration of the complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance of the matter, and the case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 192 of 2019. During the trial, the appellant filed an application (Exh. 61Kha) requesting the court to summon the Principal/In-Charge/concerned Officer of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4 DLW Campus, Varanasi. This was done to verify the authenticity of the appellant’s Class X mark sheet, which was crucial in establishing her age at the time of the alleged offense. The Trial Court accepted this application, summoned the witness, and placed the mark sheet on record. An admit card issued by the examining authority was already on record.
The accused, respondent no. 2, challenged the Trial Court’s order in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court accepted the accused’s arguments and set aside the Trial Court’s order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Crime No. 1592 of 2016 registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. |
| 2019 | Trial Court takes cognizance, case numbered as Criminal Case No. 192 of 2019. |
| Unknown | Appellant files application Exh. 61Kha to summon witness for mark sheet verification. |
| Unknown | Trial Court accepts application and summons witness. |
| 12.11.2021 | Trial Court passes order in connection with Application Exh. No.61Kha in Criminal Case No.192 of 2019. |
| Unknown | High Court sets aside Trial Court’s order in Application No.19717 of 2021. |
| 18.04.2022 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passes the order in Application moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being No.19717 of 2021. |
| 29.09.2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and restores the Trial Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially allowed the appellant’s application (Exh. 61Kha) to summon the school official to verify the Class X mark sheet. However, the accused, respondent no. 2, challenged this order in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court accepted the arguments of the accused and set aside the Trial Court’s order. The High Court’s decision was based on submissions made by the accused, although the specific reasons were not detailed in the Supreme Court’s judgment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision of the High Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the interpretation and application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. This section states:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court. – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The case also involves Sections 328, 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These sections relate to the substantive criminal offenses alleged in the initial complaint. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment primarily focused on the procedural aspect of summoning a witness and the admissibility of evidence, rather than the specifics of these offenses.
Arguments
The arguments in this case revolved around the Trial Court’s decision to allow the appellant’s application to summon a witness to verify her Class X mark sheet. The appellant contended that the Trial Court was correct in allowing the application because the mark sheet was crucial to determining her age, which had a bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused. The appellant argued that all relevant evidence should be considered to ensure a fair trial.
On the other hand, the accused argued before the High Court that the Trial Court’s order should be set aside. The accused’s specific arguments were not detailed in the Supreme Court’s judgment, but it can be inferred that they likely contended that the summoning of the witness was unnecessary or that the mark sheet was not relevant to the case. The High Court accepted the submissions made by the accused, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Accused’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order to summon a witness to verify the appellant’s Class X mark sheet.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order to summon a witness to verify the appellant’s Class X mark sheet. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the Trial Court’s order. | The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court rightly allowed the application and there was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the order. The mark sheet was crucial to determining the appellant’s age, which had a bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any cases or legal provisions other than Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court’s decision was primarily based on its assessment of the facts and the procedural aspects of the case.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court invoked its power to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission that the Trial Court was correct in allowing the application to summon the witness. | The Court agreed with the appellant and held that the Trial Court was correct in allowing the application. |
| Appellant’s Submission that the Class X mark sheet was crucial to determining the appellant’s age. | The Court agreed with the appellant and held that the mark sheet was crucial to determining the appellant’s age. |
| Appellant’s Submission that the age of the appellant had a bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused. | The Court agreed with the appellant and held that the age of the appellant had a bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused. |
| Appellant’s Submission that all relevant evidence should be considered to ensure a fair trial. | The Court agreed with the appellant and held that all relevant evidence should be considered to ensure a fair trial. |
| Accused’s Submission that the Trial Court’s order should be set aside. | The Court rejected the accused’s submission and held that the Trial Court’s order should not have been set aside. |
| Accused’s Submission that summoning the witness was unnecessary. | The Court rejected the accused’s submission and held that summoning the witness was necessary. |
| Accused’s Submission that the mark sheet was not relevant to the case. | The Court rejected the accused’s submission and held that the mark sheet was relevant to the case. |
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated that the Trial Court was right in allowing the application preferred by the appellant to summon the witness. The Supreme Court observed that there was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. The Court stated that the document was already on record after the person was examined as a witness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the view taken by the High Court, and restored the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court in connection with Application Exh. No.61Kha in Criminal Case No.192 of 2019.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered in a criminal trial. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s Class X mark sheet was crucial for determining her age, which had a direct bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused. The Court found that the High Court had erred in setting aside the Trial Court’s order, which had allowed the summoning of a witness to verify the mark sheet. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that all relevant evidence should be presented to the court to ensure a fair and just trial.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of considering all relevant evidence | 60% |
| Crucial nature of the Class X mark sheet in determining the appellant’s age | 30% |
| Ensuring a fair trial | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The Trial Court was correct in allowing the application to summon the witness.
- The Class X mark sheet was crucial to determining the appellant’s age.
- The age of the appellant had a bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged against the accused.
- All relevant evidence should be considered to ensure a fair trial.
The Supreme Court stated: “Having considered the matter carefully, in our view, the application preferred by the appellant was rightly allowed by the Trial Court and there was no occasion for the High Court to set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court.”
The Court further observed: “The result thus is that though the document is on record after the person was duly examined as a witness, the order on the basis of which the document was placed on record, now stands set-aside.”
The Supreme Court concluded: “We, therefore, allow this appeal; set-aside the view taken by the High Court and restore the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court in connection with Application Exh. No.61Kha in Criminal Case No.192 of 2019.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have the authority to summon witnesses to verify documents that are crucial to the case.
- High Courts should not interfere with trial court orders that are aimed at ensuring all relevant evidence is brought on record.
- Age of the victim is a crucial factor in cases involving sexual offenses.
- All relevant evidence must be considered to ensure a fair trial.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case, other than restoring the Trial Court’s order.
Development of Law
This case reinforces the principle that trial courts have the power to summon witnesses and documents that are necessary for a fair trial. It also clarifies that High Courts should be cautious in interfering with such orders, especially when they are aimed at ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ritu Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. upholds the importance of ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered in a criminal trial. The Court’s decision to restore the Trial Court’s order demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that the truth is discovered in criminal proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the crucial role of trial courts in ensuring that all necessary evidence is brought on record and that High Courts should not interfere with such orders without a valid reason.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 328, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Ritu Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order to summon a witness to verify the appellant’s Class X mark sheet, which was crucial to determine her age in a rape case.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the Trial Court’s order. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order, allowing the witness to be summoned and the mark sheet to be verified.
Q: Why was the Class X mark sheet important in this case?
A: The Class X mark sheet was important because it was crucial in determining the appellant’s age at the time of the alleged offense. The age of the victim has a direct bearing on the nature of the offenses alleged in the case.
Q: What is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: The judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts have the authority to summon witnesses and documents that are necessary for a fair trial. It also clarifies that High Courts should be cautious in interfering with such orders, especially when they are aimed at ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered.