1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 19415-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 13.8.2009
***
Ranjit Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.3 to 6, 11 to 15.
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is complainant in case FIR No.159 dated
11.7.1999, under Sections 364, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chhainsa. He is
aggrieved with order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the trial court, whereby the
application of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading
additional evidence has been dismissed.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner only wants to tender a copy of judgment dated 15.1.2003
passed in FIR No.244 dated 22.8.1994, under Sections 395, 398 IPC, Police
Station Chhainsa by dint of which some of the accused facing trial in the
case in hand, were convicted and sentenced to show that the parties have
strained relations and are involved in multiple disputes since long. It has
further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for
tendering copy of judgment of conviction and sentence, no oral evidence is
required since the same is perse admissible document and for this the
petitioner requires only one opportunity.
2
In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a
just decision, the salutary provisions under Section 311 of the Code are
enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at
any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a
witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a
witness or recall or re-examine any person in attendance though not
summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined
who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. In the
instant case, the prosecution only wants to tender the copy of a judgment
passed by the Court and no evidence in affirmative is required to be led. No
prejudice is going to cause to the accused, who obviously have an
opportunity to rebut the same since their evidence is yet to conclude.
Further there may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is
able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it
cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence ‘to enable it to
pronounce Judgment’, it still considers that in the interest of justice
something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can
pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Keeping in view the
fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on
merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this Court is of the considered
opinion that an opportunity is to be provided to the prosecution for
tendering the copy of judgment by means of additional evidence.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and order, under
challenge, is quashed. The appellate court is directed to grant one effective
opportunity to the petitioner/prosecution for tendering the copy of
judgment, referred to above and then proceed with the trial in accordance
with law. However, nothing said hereinabove shall have any bearing on the
merits of the case.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
August 13, 2009
Jiten