sec.254 cr p c
arvind
(Querist) 13 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
examination in chief of one witness has been completed without putting exhibit number.can it be curable pl tell me procedure?
Naresh Kudal
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mr. Arvind can a witness recalled to cure the lacuna? I think it is not permissible.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Nice Mr Naresh. I think material already available in file, only it is to be exhibited, it can't be said lacuna, it is a mistake. Lacuna may be if postmortem report is not in the file and prosecution tries to submit it through recalling a witness at later stage .
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Section 311 - Witness - Re-examination - The prosecution cannot be permitted to fill the lacuna in prosecution case - Meaning of lacuna explained.
It is a common experience in criminal Courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenever Courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act by saying that the Court could not `fill the lacuna in the prosecution case'. A lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial, either in producting relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage `to err is human' is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are proned. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a Court cannot fill up.
Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an over sight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting, errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.
Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in- charge, Delhi, 1999 CrLJ 3529 : 1999 AIR (SC) 2292 : 1999 SCC (Cr) 1062 : 1999(2) Ker LT 779 : 1999(2) Raj LW 321 : 1999(3) Crimes 106
