LexRATANLAL versus PRAHLAD JAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2017] 8 S.C.R. 682 RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 499 of2014) SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.311 - Object of - Held: In order to enable the court to find C out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provision of s.311 is enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any D person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute - 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 - This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection - Recall E is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice - The reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order. s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Murder - Charge sheet filed against respondent no.1 and 2 - Statement of 28 witnesses F including of PW4 and PW5 recorded - PW4 and PW5 moved applications before Sessions Judge uls.311 CrPC after passage of 14 months for re-recording their statements on the ground that the previous statements were made under the influence of police and stating that respondent no. l and 2 had no role in the incident - G Sessions judge rejected the plea of police pressure and dismissed the application - However, High Court u/s. 482 quashed the order of Sessions judge thereby allowing the applications of PW4 and PW5 - On appeal by uncle of deceased, held: PWs 4 and 5 were examined and cross-examined at length - During the police investigation and in their evidence, they have supported the H 682 RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 683 prosecution story - The Sessions Judge held that they were not under A any pressure while recording their evidence - After a passage of 14 months, they filed the application for their re-examination on the ground that the statements made by them earlier we~e under pressure - They have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making application - It seems that they had been won over - There is no reason to allow such an application - The Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in rejecting the application - High Court was not right B in setting aside the said order """ The records show that after the order of the High Court, PWs 4 and 5 were re-examined before the trial court - Trial court is directed to proceed with the matter without taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded C after the order of the High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 201, 342, 120B. Locus standi: Meaning of - Discussed. D Murder case - Locus standi of uncle of the victim-deceased to challenge the order of High Court whereby the applications of prosecution witnesses to re-record their statements on the ground - that previous statements were made under police pressure were E allowed - Held: Anyone can set the criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary - This general principle is founded on a policy that an offence, that is an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force, is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against the F society - Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the offender - Art. 136 does not confer a right to appeal on any party but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases - The exercise of the power of the court is not G circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it - It does not confer a right to appeal, it confers only a right to apply for special leave to appeal - Therefore, there was no bar for the _appellant to apply for special leave to appeal as he is an aggrieved person - Constitution of India - Art.136. H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The first question for consideration is wheth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.