Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"15. A conspectus of authorities referred to above would show that the principle is well settled that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.PC should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case, this being the primary duty of a criminal court. Calling a witness or re-examining a witness already examined for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be dubbed as "filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case" unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice." (Emphasis supplied) .

court below at any time before pronouncement of the judgment.

Statement of PW-1, Rekha Thakur, who is complainant in the case, itself suggests that at the time of alleged incident, number of lawyers were present on the spot, but since, such fact never came to be mentioned in the police report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C, accused failed to examine advocates in her defence. Once, such factum came to the knowledge of the accused after recording of statement of complainant, wherein, she herself admitted factum with regard to presence of some of advocates, she filed an application under Section 311 Cr.PC, though at belated stage. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State of Bihar & Anr. 2013(4) SCC 461, while culling out certain principles required to be borne in mind by the Court while dealing with application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C, has held that the exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive, speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. Hon'bel Apex Court has further held that if evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the duty of the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person because very object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to find out the truth and render a just decision. Lastly, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any .