RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 04-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 420 
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
{Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2013) 
JULY 04, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.311 - Power of court to re-examine a witness - Principles 
to be followed while dealing with an application u/s 311 -
Culled out - Held: In the instant case, the application of 
complainant for his re-examination has no bona tides -- Trial 
0 court had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of 
complainant while tendering evidence which persuaded it to 
reach the conclusion and that deserves .more credence while 
examining the correctness of the order passed by it - Order 
of trial court did not call for any interference, in any event, 
E behind the back of appellant - The trial shall be completed 
expeditiously - Evidence Act, 1972 - s.138. 
The second respondent, filed a written complaint on 
8.7.1999, alleging that on 07.07.1999, there arose a dispute 
between him and his brother over raising a construction 
F and t~at at the instance of his brother, latter's son 
(appellant), fired at him, whereafter he was taken to the 
hospital for treatment. A charge sheet was filed against 
the appellant and his father for the offences punishable 
u/ss. 324, 307 read with s. 34, IPC. In the trial, the second 
G respondent was examined as PW-9 on 16.3.2007 and the 
evidence of the prosecution was closed on 4.4.2007. In 
the meantime, yet another altercation took place as 
between the second respondent (PW9) and his son on 
the one side and the appellant and his father on the other. 
H 
420 
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR & 421 
ANR. 
In the said incident, the father of the appellant was stated 
A 
to have been beaten. This led to registration of FIR in 
case Crime No.78 of 2007. Thereafter the second 
respondent filed a petition dated 24.8.2007, u/s. 311 
Cr.P.C. seeking permission for his re-examination. A 
similar petition was filed by the Additional Public 
B 
Prosecutor on 5.12.2007. The trial court dismissed both 
the applications. However, the High Court allowed the 
prayer of the second respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 Under s. 311, Cr.P .C. widest of the powers 
have been invested with the courts when it comes to the 
question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-
examine any witness already examined. This is clear 
from the expression "any" used as a pre-fix to "court", 
D 
"inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding", "person as a 
witness", "person in attendance though not summoned 
as a witness", and "person already examined". Section 
138 of the Evidence Act, prescribes the order of 
examination of a witness in the court, which will have to 
E 
necessarily be in consonance with the prescription 
contained ins. 311 Cr.P.C. The power u/s. 311, Cr.P.C. 
can be exercised by any court at any stage in any inquiry 
or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for 
the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or 
F 
for examining any person in attendance, even though not 
summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any 
person already examined. [Para 14) [431-B-C, E-H] 
1.2 While dealing with an application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. 
read along with s. 138 of the Evidence Act, the following 
G 
principles, as emerging from various decisions of this 
Court, will have to be borne in mind by the courts: 
(a) 
Whether the court is right in thinking that the 
new evidence is needed by it? Whether the 
H 
422 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 
evidence sought to be led in u/s. 311 is needed 
by the court for a just decision of a case? 
(b) 
The exercise of the widest discretionary power 
u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the 
judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, 
inconclusive or speculative presentation of 
facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be 
defeated. 
(c) 
If evidence of any witness appears to the court 
to be essential to the just decision of the case, 
it is the power of the court to summon and 
examine or recall and re-examine any such 
person. 
(d) 
The exercise of power u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. should 
be resorted to only with the object of finding 
out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such 
facts, which will lead to a just and correct 
decision of the case. 
(e) 
The exercise of the said power cannot be 
dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution 
case, unless the facts and circumstances of 
the case make 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.