SISTER MINA LALITA BARUWA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 05-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 788 
SISTER MINA LALITA BARUWA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS 
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2044 OF 2013) 
DECEMBER 05, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR ANO FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 301 and 311 -
C Criminal prosecution - Trying charge u/s. 376(2}{g) !PC -
Evidence of Statutory Authority (PW 18) who had conducted 
Test Identification Parade, not in consonance with the record 
of Test Identification Parade - Application of prosecutrix for 
recalling the evidence of that witness - Dismissed by courts 
D below in view.of s. 301 - Held: There is serious irregularity. in 
the orders passed by courts below - The courts should have 
made an attempt to reconcile ss. 301 and 311 and ensured 
that the trial proceeded in right direction - Trial court directed 
to recall the evidence of PW 18 and call upon the prosecutor 
E to cross-examine the witness on the disputed aspect of his 
· statement and provide opportunity to the prosecutrix to file 
written arguments as provided uls. 301. 
Criminal Trial - Role of court -
While conducting a 
criminal proceeding, the courts should maintain a belligerent 
F approach, instead of a wooden one. 
In a criminal trial, where a charge u/s. 376(2)(g) IPC 
was alleged, the prosecutrix/PW25 in the case, 
approached the public prosecutor alleging that PW-18, (a 
G Judicial Officer as a statutory authority), who had held the 
Identification Parade, made a wrong statement before the 
Court, not in consonance with the records of the Test 
Identification Parade and requested the Public 
Prosecutor to confront PW-18 in that respect. Since the 
H 
788 
SISTER MINA LALITA BARUWA v, STATE OF ORISSA 
789 
Public Prosecutor did not take any steps, the appellant 
A 
moved an application for recalling PW-18. The application 
was rejected as not maintainable. When the appellant 
approached High Court against rejection of her 
application, it was held that in view of s. 301 Cr.P.C. her 
application was not maintainable. Hence the present 
B 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In criminal jurisprudence, while the offence 
is against the society, it is the unfortunate victim who is 
C 
the actual sufferer and therefore, it is imperative for the 
State and the prosecution to ensure that no stone is left 
unturned. It is also the equal, if not more, the duty and 
responsibility of the Court to be alive and alert in the 
course of trial of a criminal case and ensure that the 
D 
evidence recorded in accordance with law reflect every 
bit of vital information placed before it. It can also be said 
that in that process, the Court should be conscious of its 
responsibility and at times when the prosecution either 
deliberately or inadvertently omit to bring forth a notable 
E 
piece of evidence or a conspicuous statement of any 
witness with a view to either support or prejudice the 
case of any party, should not hesitate to interject and 
prompt the prosecution side to clarify the position or act 
on its own and get the record of proceedings straight. 
F 
Neither the prosecution nor t~e Court should remain a 
silent spectator in such situations. The whole scheme of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages foolproof 
system in dealing with a crime alleged against the 
accused and thereby ensure that the guilty does not G 
escape and innocent is not punished. [Para 19] [801-F-
H; 802-A-B, C-D] 
2. The trial judge, as well as the High Court, 
miserably failed to come alive to the situation while 
dealing with a case of this nature where a charge under 
H 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A Section 376(2)(g) has been alleged against the accused 
in which PW-18 a Judicial Officer as a statutory authority, 
who held the identification parade made a totally blatant 
and wrong statement, not in consonance with th~ record 
of identification parade, namely, Exhibit-8 and thereby 
B provided scope for serious illegality b~ing committed for 
dispensing justice. [Para 16] [799-G-H; 800-A-B] 
3. The inability of the trial Court in failing to take 
appropriate action as and when it was brought to its 
notice about the fallacy in the oral version, would 
C certainly cause a serious miscarriage of justice, if allowed 
to remain. The High Court adopted a very casual 
approach instead of attempting to find out as to the 
appropriate procedure which the trial Court stiould have 
followed in a situation like this. The High Court also 
D commit

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