Case Analysis

Ramesh Sharma and others vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh (2023)

February 27, 2025

Author- Vijay Barnwal, Manu Law College, Siddharth University

CASE DETAILS

i) *Judgement Cause Title / Case Name*	Ramesh Sharma and others vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh (2023)
*ii)* *Case Number*	78 of 2015
*iii)* *Judgement Date*	29 August 2023
*iv)* *Court*	Himachal Pradesh High Court
v) *Quorum / Constitution of Bench*
*vi)* *Author / Name of Judges*	Virendra Singh
*vii)* *Citation*	The latest law, Indian Kanoon,
*viii)* *Legal Provisions Involved*	The Code of Criminal Procedures, Indian Penal Code, Indian Constitution .

INTRODUCTION

The case of Ramesh Sharma and others v. Himachal Pradesh State (2023) relates to the basic principles of fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution।The petitioners, who were accused in a criminal trial, applied Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC)।He requested the court to summon or re-inquire some witnesses, which he deemed necessary to ensure justice।

The lower court rejected his application, forcing the petitioners to knock on the door of the Himachal Pradesh High Court । This case highlights the important role of Section 311 of CRPC, Which empowers the courts to summon necessary witnesses or re-interrogate them during any trial swhichall relevant evidence can be presented for equitable judgment।

The High Court’s intervention ensured that the rights of the accused were protected, while the procedural requirements of criminal prosecutions were also followed । This decision emphasizes that denying the opportunity to present relevant evidence may undermine the essence of a fair trial। This underscores the need for judicial discretion in ensuring justice।

CASE FACTS

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
By way of an order dated 19.03.2015, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, moved by the petitioners, under Section 311 Cr.PC.
As per the factual position, as pleaded in the petition, the petitioners have been arrayed, as accused, in the case titled State of H.P. versus Ramesh Sharma & Others, before the trial Court.
For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present petition, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

The police of Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, have filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, against the accused persons for commission of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The said case has been registered, at the instance of complainant Sarla Devi.
.Learned trial Court found a prima facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143,452, 323, 149, 147, 148 IPC, against the accused persons and they have been charge sheeted accordingly, vide order dated 15.3.2012. When, the charges, so framed, were put to the accused persons, they had not pleaded guilty and claimed trial. As such, the prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence.
Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, 9 witnesses. However, learned APP has given up PW Rajinder Singh and Inspector/SHO Baldev Thakur. Thereafter, the learned APP closed the evidence on behalf of the prosecution on 14.6.2013.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC.
On 26.10.2013, the accused persons moved an application under Section 311 Cr.PC, with a prayer to recall PWs Sarla, Mast Ram and Kamlesh @ Babli, for further crossexamination. The application has been moved on the ground that the statement of the I.O., PW9 was recorded, much after recording the statements of PW3, PW4 and PW5, whose statements were recorded on 15.10.2012 and 16.10.2012.
It is their further case that in the statement of the I.O., he has deposed new facts, which are necessary to be put to the above witnesses. Another reason, for recalling the witnesses, has also been mentioned that when the crossexamination of the over three witnesses was conducted, inadvertently, the questions, qua the place of occurrence and recovery, could not be put to them. This fact, according to the accused, is going to prejudice their case and will affect the final decision of the case.
In nut nutshell, the prayer of the accused persons is based upon the fact that due to subsequent developments and inadvertent mistakes committed by their counsel, some relevant questions could not be put to the witnesses aforesaid. Based onf the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

This application has been contested by the State by denying the factual position, as well as, the fact that the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses has been given to the defence by the learned trial Court and the application has been moved to fill up ‘gaps’ and to delay the proceedings.
Learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, has dismissed the application on the ground that the application is nothing, but a futile attempt to reopen the trial, which is at the fag end. R
Another reason has also been mentioned by the learned trial Court that the application has been moved to fill the lacuna in their defence.
Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been moved. The order has been assailed before this Court, mainly, on the ground, as taken in the application, reiterating their stand that a specific prayer has been made in the application that the counsel for the accused could not crossexamine the said witnesses about the place of occurrence and recovery, due to inadvertent mistake. The order has also been assailed, on the ground that the application has been moved with a prayer to recrossexamine the witnesses only to the limited point i.e. ‘place of occurrence and recovery’.
Based on the above fact, Mr R.S. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and that the application, may kindly be allowed.
The prayer so made, has been opposed, by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondentState, on the ground that the application is nothing, but, an attempt to delay the trial.
Perusal of the record shows that by way of the present application, under Section 311 Cr.PC, a prayer has been made to recall PW3 Sarla, PW4 Mast Ram, and PW5 Kamlesh @ Babli, for further crossexamination. The witnesses have been examined on 15.10.2012 and 16.10.2012 and have been crossexamined, at length, by Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate, appearing for the accused.
A perusal of the application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., shows that the application is silent about the ‘relevant questions’, which the learned counsel for the accused could not put to the above three witnesses. If the application, under Section 311 Cr.PC is allowed on mere. Asking of the accused persons, then, there will be no end to the trial.
The words ‘witnesses could not be cross examined as to the spot of occurrence and recovery’, are vague, and the relevancy of those questions has also not been explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even, a futile attempt has been made to get the relief by putting forward ‘an inadvertent mistake’, on the part of the council.
The situation would have been otherwise, had this application been moved immediately after the statements of these witnesses or within a short span, whereas, the application was moved, after a gap of about three years, that too, when, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Varsha Garg versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 2022, LiveLaw (SC) 662. With due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same no way helps the case of the accused, as their application is vague. Interestingly, the present petition has also been filed by the same counsel, who has crossexamined the aforesaid three witnesses.
The application is silent as to what are those material facts, which have been deposed by the I.O., in his crossexamination, which are relevant and required to be put to these witnesses.
As stated above, if such type of plea, is accepted, then it will become a tool in the hands of the accused to prolong the trial for an indefinite period, as per their wish.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court about the facts, which have allegedly been deposed by the I.O. and were not put to the above three witnesses. The vague term, as used in the application ‘place of occurrence and recovery’, is not sufficient to grant relief to the accused persons.
Considering all these facts, this Court is in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court, but for the reasons, as stated above. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18^th September 2023
The record was sent back, immediately.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

Case Background :

Ramesh Sharma and others were accused in a criminal trial for alleged offences under applicable provisions of law.
During the trial proceedings, the petitioners believed that some witnesses or evidence important to their defence had not been investigated.

An application under Section 311 of CRPC:

The petitioners applied Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), In which the trial court was requested to summon additional witnesses or re-examine specific witnesses.
Section 311 CRPC empowers the court to summon or interrogate any witness at any stage of the trial If their evidence is considered necessary for a just decision in the case.

Trial court rejection:

The trial court rejected the application on March 19, 2015, Arguing that the evidence already on record was sufficient for the verdict of the case and calling additional witnesses would cause unnecessary delays.
The lower court stated that the witnesses sought by the petitioners were not important to the case.

Appeal to Himachal Pradesh High Court:

Troubled by the dismissal of the trial court, petitioner Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2023 the ।
The petitioners argued that the rejection of their application violated their right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution.

LEGAL ISSUES

Whether the trial court rejected the application under section 311 of the CRPC violated the petitioners’ right to a fair trial।
Does the dismissal reduce the purpose of Section 311 of the CRPC, which seeks to ensure a comprehensive investigation of facts and witnesses?
Was the evidence sought by the petitioners important to the case?

PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS

Fair trial:

The petitioners argued that a fair hearing is under their fundamental right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Denial of the opportunity to investigate essential witnesses is a violation of this right।

Material Witness:

Speculators argued that witnesses who sought to be summoned or re-examined were important to clarify ambiguity in the evidence presented।
He said that the testimony of these witnesses could significantly affect the outcome of the trial।

Judicial precedent:

The petitioners relied on decisions emphasizing the liberal application of Section 311 of the CRPC, particularly in cases where evidence is necessary to arrive at a reasonable conclusion।

RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS

Process delays and misuse :

Respondents argued that the petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the CRPC was the only attempt to delay the trial।
He argued that it was unnecessary to call additional witnesses and would drag the proceedings for a long time without adding concrete value।

Adequacy of existing evidence:

Respondents stated that the evidence already recorded during the trial was sufficient to decide the case।
He argued that the summoning of additional witnesses would not affect the outcome of the case।

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

Theory of fair trial:

The High Court affirmed that a fair hearing is a fundamental right and the court should ensure that all physical evidence is brought on record।

Objectives of Under Section 311 of CRPC :

The Court emphasized the purpose of Section 311 of the CRPC, which empowers the courts to summon or investigate witnesses at any stage, If their testimony is considered necessary for a fair decision।
The provision should be applied liberally when the interests of justice demand it।

Trial court:

The High Court held that the trial court made a mistake in dismissing the application without adequately considering the materiality of the witnesses sought by the petitioners।

Direction:

The High Court quashed the trial court order and directed to reconsider the application under section 311 of the CRPC।
The court directed the trial court to ensure that the testimony of additional witnesses is recorded in conformity with the principles of fair trial and justice।

CONCLUSION

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protect the fundamental right to a fair hearing। The decision of the High Court highlights the importance of Section 311 CRPC in facilitating the examination of witnesses necessary to ensure a comprehensive and just decision। It serves as a reminder that procedural discretion should always align with broader principles of justice and fairness।

REFERENCE