Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hargopal Singh Madan And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 September, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Rev.No. 3387 of 2010 1
Crl.Rev.No. 882 of 2010
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 7.9.2011
Crl.Rev.No. 3387 of 2010 (O&M)
Hargopal Singh Madan and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
Crl.Rev.No. 882 of 2010 (O&M)
Hargopal Singh Madan and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Petitioners in person.
Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.GPS Bal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions as the similar controversy is involved in both the cases. Crl.Rev.No. 3387 of 2010 2 Crl.Rev.No. 882 of 2010
The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 10.11.2010 and 3.3.2010. Vide order dated 10.11.2010, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed. Vide order dated 3.3.2010 the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for permission to lead additional evidence was partly allowed.
Petitioner No.1 has submitted that at the time of registration of FIR, entire evidence could not be placed before the investigating agency as petitioner No.2 was admitted in the hospital for treatment on account of the shock suffered by her due to untimely death of her daughter. The daughter of the petitioners, Davinder Jit Kaur, was married to Charabir Singh in the year 1998. The couple was blessed with a daughter. However, Davinder Jit Kaur died an un-natural death on 18.4.2005 due to harassment meted out to her by her in-laws. The daughter of the petitioners was highly educated, a brilliant student and was a gold medalist. She was working as lecturer in mathematics in a college. Now by way of additional evidence, the petitioners wanted to prove on record some pages written by the deceased and wanted to examine as a witness Sukhwant Kaur.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution was not entitled to prove the material now sought to be brought on record as the same did not form part of the challan.
Crl.Rev.No. 3387 of 2010 3Crl.Rev.No. 882 of 2010
After hearing the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be allowed.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case.
In the present case, the prosecution evidence is still going on. At this stage, the prosecution wants to prove on record some pages written by the deceased, by examining an expert, and PW Sukhwant Kaur in order to substantiate its plea that the deceased had been treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Although the said evidence did not form part of the challan but in the interest of justice, it would be just and expedient to allow the prosecution to prove the said pages on record by examining an expert. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard Crl.Rev.No. 3387 of 2010 4 Crl.Rev.No. 882 of 2010 would be duly cross-examined by the accused. Moreover, the accused would be at liberty to lead their defence evidence in this regard. The learned trial Court has, thus, erred in declining the applications moved by the prosecution for permission to lead additional evidence on erroneous considerations especially when the prosecution evidence is still going on. The whole endeavour of the Court is to impart justice to the parties. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even law bends before justice. Duty to do justice is paramount.
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution dated 3.3.2010 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed in toto and application dated 10.11.2010 moved by the prosecution for additional evidence is allowed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 7, 2011 anita