The Supreme Court has underlined that a trial court cannot simply watch from the sidelines when the prosecution fails to bring crucial witnesses before it, stressing that judges have a duty to ensure that the best available evidence is not kept out of the trial.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while setting aside concurrent orders of a trial court and the Patna High Court, which had refused a request to examine key witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court said that where the prosecution’s failure is apparent, the trial judge must act promptly and question why essential witnesses have not been examined.
The Bench observed that a court is not a passive spectator in criminal proceedings. Even while remaining impartial, it must ensure that material evidence is not suppressed or left unexplored because of deficiencies in the manner in which the prosecution conducts the case.
The dispute stemmed from an altercation in which the appellant and his father were allegedly injured. The prosecution case was that one accused attacked the appellant’s father with a spear, while two others were alleged to have assaulted him with an iron rod. Another accused was accused of striking the appellant on the head with a sword.
Following the investigation, however, charges were framed only against two of the accused, while the allegations against the remaining two did not proceed to trial.
The trial began in 2017 and had reached an advanced stage when the appellant sought permission under Section 311 CrPC to summon important witnesses who had not been examined. These included his injured father, the doctor who treated the injured persons, and the Investigating Officer.
The trial court rejected the request, viewing it as an attempt to prolong the proceedings and repair weaknesses in the evidence. The High Court also declined to interfere.
The injured complainant then approached the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the case presented a serious failure on the part of the prosecution. It noted that the appellant and his father were the persons said to have been injured, yet the father had not been examined. The doctor and the Investigating Officer, both central to the prosecution’s case, had also not testified.
The Court said the absence of such witnesses could potentially result in an acquittal, not because the evidence was genuinely insufficient, but because the prosecution had conducted the trial poorly.
It also rejected the reasoning that the request was merely an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution case, pointing out that the failure to produce the witnesses was being highlighted by the de-facto complainant himself.
The Supreme Court consequently allowed the application under Section 311 CrPC and directed the trial court to permit the examination of the injured witness, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer.
The Bench further ordered that the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC should resume from the stage where it had stopped. Any incriminating material emerging from the testimony of the newly examined witnesses must also be placed before the accused for their response.
