VARSHA GARG versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 08-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
VARSHA GARG
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2022)
AUGUST 08, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 91, 311 – Challenge
to the dismissal of applications filed by the prosecution for the
production of the decoding registers and for summoning of the
witnesses of the cellular companies – Held: The decoding registers
are a relevant piece of evidence to establish the co-relationship
between the location of the accused and the cell phone tower –
Summons to produce a document or other thing u/s.91 can be issued
where Court finds that production of the document or thing “is
necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, trial
or other proceeding” under CrPC – Power u/s.311 to summon a
witness is conditioned by the requirement that the evidence of the
person who is sought to be summoned appears to the Court to be
essential to the just decision of the case – In the instant case, the
nodal officers of the cellular companies were examined, they stated
that location of call made by the mobile number is shown by codes
and location can be stated by decoding the same – Hence, decoding
register is relevant – It is a crucial piece of evidence – Summoning
of witness for the purpose of producing register was essential.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the application of the
prosecution for the production of the decoding registers is
relatable to the provisions of Section 91 CrPC. The decoding
registers are sought to be produced through the representatives
of the cellular companies in whose custody or possession they
are found. The decoding registers are a relevant piece of evidence
to establish the co-relationship between the location of the
accused and the cell phone tower. The reasons which weighed
with the High Court and the Trial Court in dismissing the
application are extraneous to the power which is conferred under
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
Section 91 on the one hand and Section 311 on the other. The
summons to produce a document or other thing under Section
91 can be issued where the Court finds that the production of the
document or thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of
any investigation, trial or other proceeding  under the CrPC. As
already noted, the power under Section 311 to summon a witness
is conditioned by the requirement that the evidence of the person
who is sought to be summoned appears to the Court to be essential
to the just decision of the case. [Para 35][166-C-D; 167-A-B]
2. The relevance of the decoding register emerges from
the statement of PW-41. Hence, the effort of the prosecution to
produce the decoding register which is a crucial and vital piece
of evidence ought not to have been obstructed. In terms of the
provisions of Section 311, the summoning of the witness for the
purpose of producing the decoding register was essential for the
just decision of the case. [Para 37][167-F]
3. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the requirements of
Section 311, we deal with the objection of the respondents that
the application should not be allowed as it will lead to filling in
the lacunae of the prosecution‘s case. However, even the said
reason cannot be an absolute bar to allowing an application under
Section 311. [Para 38][167-G-H]
4. The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally
protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa, while
reiterating Rajendra Prasad, the Court observed that it is the
duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an
error in interest of justice. In the present case, the importance
of the decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW-
41. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being additional
documents required to be able to appreciate the existing evidence
in form of the call details which are already on record but use
codes to signify the location of accused, a crucial detail, which
can be decoded only through the decoding registers, the right of
the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the
decoding registers fits into the requirement of being relevant
material which was not brought on record due to inadvertence.
[Para 40][168-F; 169-C]
VARSHA GARG v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
5. For the above reasons, this Court has com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.