DINA NATH CHAMAR & ORS. V. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Author- HARSHDEEP KAUR, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

CASE DETAILS

      i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

Dina Nath Chamar & Ors vs State of Bihar & Anr

    ii)          Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3048 of 2016

   iii)          Judgement Date

March 7, 2017

   iv)          Court

High Court of Judicature at Patna

     v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench

Single Bench

   vi)          Author / Name of Judges

Hon’ble Justice Shivaji Pandey

 vii)          Citation

 [2017] INSC 184

viii)          Legal Provisions Involved

Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Power to summon material witnesses or examine persons present.

Section 91, Cr.P.C.: Production of documents or other material during the trial.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Courts have the power to call for all necessary evidence to have fair justice. Discovery of all material facts and evidences is not only necessary for the rights of the individuals but for the interest of the general public. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) 1973 provides for procedure in criminal law cases in India. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. serves as an important tool to administer the power of the court to summon, examine, recall, or re-recall witnesses at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or proceedings. This section gives an opportunity for the court to present crucial material which may have been missed or omitted – either deliberately or as a consequence of other circumstances. This particular clause emphasizes the judicial duty to examine every opportunity to determine the truth.

In this case, the prosecution tried to use section 311 of Cr.P.C. which is to introduce additional proof by questioning an unknown witness and presenting a crucial document – a gun license. This was a move to fill in the gaps in the prosecution case. After the trial court granted the motion, the Patna High Court examined whether using section 311 at this last date corresponded with its objective of achieving justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. FatehsinhMohansinh Chauhan[1],  held that “A lacuna in the prosecution case is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a Public Prosecutor during a trial, either in producing relevant materials or eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage “to err is human” is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as a lacuna which a Court cannot fill up.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case:

  • The case was registered as sessions Trial No. 23 of 2014 when it was committed to the sessions court. During the trial, seven witnesses were called and on 10 September 2014, the prosecution evidences were formally closed. On 18.11.2014, the court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313P.C., and the defense was given time to examine the witness[2].
  • Following the conclusion of the defense’s arguments on November 4, 2015, the prosecution submitted an application asking permission to recall Gajadhar Singh as a witness and to introduce the gun license as evidence under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on November 10, 2015. The trial court allowed the application while giving the reasoning that the evidence in question was pivotal for ensuring a just resolution of the case. This decision was subsequently contested by the petitioners before the Patna High Court, leading to the present judgment.

Factual Background of the Case:

  • The incident occurred on 8 June 1989, in Daudnagar, Aurangabad district, Bihar where the complainant Ram Vinay Singh alleged that a group of people rushed into his house, stole his brother Gajadhar Singh’s licensed double-barrel gun, and raised slogans in support of Naxalism. He identified the accused individuals during the incident, and the First Information Report (FIR) was subsequently lodged. The police conducted an investigation and filed a chargesheet against the accused.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked at an advanced stage of the trial for summoning witnesses and admitting documents not previously introduced?
  • Whether the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. amount to filling lacunae in the prosecution case?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filled late, that is, after the defense arguments were concluded, and is the only reason to fill in the gaps in the prosecution case which is illegal.
  • There is a delay in the production of evidence as the licensed gun had always been owned by Gajadhar Singh and could have been produced earlier.
  • There is prosecution negligence as they did not produce the document within the allotted time, despite having ample opportunities resulting in an unjust disadvantage to the accused.
  • The judicial discretionary power under section 311 of Cr.P.C. is misused as this provision is meant to uphold justice and not to help the prosecution in covering up its deficiencies.
  • The defense argued that allowing the prosecution to introduce new evidence at the Culmination of the trial has deprived the accused by not giving an opportunity to Challenge it earlier.
  • The petitioner further claimed that the prosecution intentionally Delayed the examination of Gajadhar Singh, as it will lead to hindering the power to Cross-examination on him by the defense.
  • The petitioner contended that their right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is violated by delays and procedural flaws.
  • According to the Petitioner section 311 of Cr.P.C. has limited scope to produce new evidence that should have been produced earlier during the Regular process of trial and may lead to procedural risk of trial.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Respondent submitted that the court has the power under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon material witnesses and documents at any stage if the review is necessary to have just and fair decision.
  • Further the state argued that justice is more important than the technicalities, that is to ensure the discovery of the truth and all relevant evidence regardless of procedural delays.
  • The prosecution highlighted that the gun license in question is important evidence to have a fair trial.
  • The prosecution countered that there is no injustice to the accused to have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
  • The state argued that the trial court has the discretion to consider all facts and circumstances in ensuring a just decision and the right to a fair trial applies equally to the victim and society.
  • The state submitted that section 311 of Cr.P.C. has liberal interpretation and is necessary for the public interest in criminal justice.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India:

  • “Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law[3].”

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:

  • “Section 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 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[4].”

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Justice Shivaji Pandey, analyzing Section 311 Cr.P.C., The concept of a fair trial, as well as the harmony among procedural and substantive justice. The judgment reaffirms the court’s duty that every essential piece of evidence is produced for a just conclusion.

The court has wide discretionary power under section 311 of Cr.P.C., which allows summoning, recalling, or re-examining a witness at any stage of the trial. There is a distinction between permissive discretion and mandatory obligation under Section 311. The first part of the provision, using the term “may,” grants the court the discretionary authority to summon or recall witnesses when it deems necessary. The second part, however, gives the term “shall,” thereby implementing a binding obligation on the court to summon or re-examine a witness if their evidence is “essential to the just decision of the case”

In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.[5]  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the object and scope of exercising the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., The court stressed the fact that the fair trial demand is not only necessary for the accused but is also for the victim and society at large. This decision focused on even if the Prosecution failed to submit evidence at an earlier stage, The court has the power to summon it later if it is crucial for a just decision.

The petitioner’s argument of not allowing the prosecution to submit evidence at the final stage amounted to filling lacunae, has been disallowed by various precedents such as in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell[6]  the court stated that a procedural error does not imply an irreparable gap.

The judgment reaffirmed the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar[7] which held that the prosecution is not entitled to artificially improve its case but the court has to allow the correction of actual flaws which may hamper the decision.

Introduction of new evidence or documents does not mean to be guided by procedural convenience as held in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar[8]  the court stressed the fact that evidence which may support the prosecution case is not sufficient reason to be introduced at the belated stage.

As a result, The ruling underscores that while courts must prevent the prosecution from filling in gaps with delayed material, they must equally ensure that inadvertent omissions do not result in a miscarriage of justice.

GUIDELINES:

  • The trial Court must use its power under section 311 of Cr.P.C. with consciousness and only when the evidence is deemed necessary for a just decision.
  • The prosecution must not delay the trial without any just reason
  • The defense should be given an opportunity to counter the new evidence.
  • The trial court should focus on speedy proceedings rather than wasting time on delaying tactics.

OVERRULING JUDGMENTS:

  • The Court examined this case from Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell[9] by pointing out that the additional evidence was not intended to fill in gaps, but rather to ensure a fair adjudication.
  • It followed the decision in the State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar[10], which allowed for additional evidence if needed to achieve justice.

OBITER DICTA:

  • Courts must be proactive in determining the truth.
  • Speedy trials should not compromise justice.
  • The vast powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be handled with caution.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in Dina Nath Chamar & Ors. v. State of Bihar is a well-reasoned and balanced ruling that put emphasis on the judiciary’s role as the supreme authority to give just decisions. It focuses on the concept of fair trial and increasing the trial courts power to Correct procedural lapses.

While the decision put emphasis on judicial correction, It also serves as an indicating reminder to not misuse this power. This provision supports the public’s trust in the judiciary and protects the rights of the people in the society.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

  • [1] (2006) 7 SCC 529
  • [2] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5339295/
  • [3] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
  • [4] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 311
  • [5] (2006) 3 SCC 374
  • [6] (1999) 6 SCC 110
  • [7] (2016) 8 SCC 762
  • [8] (2013) 14 SCC 461
  • [9] (1999) 6 SCC 110
  • [10] (2016) 8 SCC 762

Important Statutes Referred:

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • The Constitution of India, 1950
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture