LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Supreme Court stated that an application under Section 311 CrPC cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds that it will result in the prosecution's case being filled in. 
  • According to the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, the power must be exercised whenever the court believes that any evidence is necessary for the just decision of the case and is not constrained by the closure of evidence. On November 18, 2015, an advocate was found brutally murdered outside his office.
  • The Sessions Court denied an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon the nodal officers of certain cellular entities, as well as the decoding register, in order to trace the mobile location of the accused on various grounds.
  • The document sought by the prosecution does not form part of the investigation
  • The document was not obtained during the course of the investigation. The trial court also noted that the prosecution's evidence was closed. This order was upheld by the High Court. 
  • The deceased lawyer's spouse filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, challenging these orders.
  • At the request of the deceased's spouse, the accused raised objections to the appeal's maintainability before the Supreme Court.
  • In this regard, the court noted that the State had filed an application for witness summons and the production of the decoding register. 
  • As a result, the court determined that Section 301's bar does not stand in the way. The court then considered the scope of Section 311 CrPC, which states that the Court "may"  summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, even if they have not been summoned as a witness; and recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined.
  • The bench then addressed the respondents' objection that the application should be denied because it would fill in the gaps in the prosecution's case. 
  • The court stated that because the decoding registers are simply additional documents required to appreciate the existing evidence in the form of call details that are already on record but use codes to signify the location of the accused, a crucial detail that can only be decoded through the decoding registers, the accused's right to a fair trial is not prejudiced. 
  • The production of the decoding registers meets the requirement of being relevant material that was not brought on record by mistake, the court said in granting the appeal.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  45  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query