Prosecution Can Examine Unlisted Witnesses Or Documents If It Aids The Court In Reaching A Just Decision: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Prosecution can examine any witness or documents, which were not listed in the list of documents or witnesses filed in Court, if such additional evidence assists the Court in reaching a just decision.
The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition challenging the order of the Trial Court, wherein the Petitioner contended that the Prosecution had examined witnesses that were not listed in the chargesheet just to fill up cavities in their case. The Court emphasized that the filing of a police report along with a list of witnesses and documents is merely a practice, which does not limit the prosecution or the Court.
Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi observed, “The list of witnesses/documents filed with the Police report (Charge sheet) filed by the police is only a practice. It does not prevent the Prosecution or Magistrate/Court from examining any other witnesses or receiving documents if they help the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case”.
Advocate Srinivasa Rao Velivela appeared for the Petitioner, and Special Assistant Public Prosecutor Y Jagadeeswara Rao appeared for the Respondents.
The Respondent had filed a case for offenses punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). A Magistrate took cognizance of the case, recorded the examination of the accused under Section 251 CrPC, and posted the case for trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses and later applied under Section 311 CrPC to issue summons to additional witnesses. The Petitioner approached the Court under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the order passed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner contended that the Trial Court did not consider that the prosecution was trying to fill up the lacunae in their case during the trial by introducing new witnesses.
The Court observed that per Section 254 (1) of the CrPC, if a Magistrate does not convict the accused under sections 252 or 253, the magistrate must proceed to hear both the prosecution and defense and consider all evidence presented, including both oral and documentary evidence, as established by the Law of Evidence. Additionally, the Court noted that Section 311 of the CrPC grants the court the power to summon witnesses and examine them or recall and re-examine individuals already examined if their testimony is deemed essential to the just decision of the case.
The Court noted that during the evidence stage of trials for session cases, warrant cases, or summons cases, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate can admit any evidence provided in support of the prosecution. This includes oral or documentary evidence not included on the list of witnesses or documents filed with the police report (charge sheet) under Section 173 CrPC. However, the Court emphasized that the accused must be given copies of these statements or documents to exercise their right to cross-examination. The list of witnesses and documents submitted by the police is merely a customary practice. It does not prevent the Prosecution or Magistrate/Court from introducing additional witnesses or documents if they help the Court reach a just decision.
“Therefore, in my considered opinion, as long as the trial in sessions cases, warrant cases or summons cases is at the stage of evidence for prosecution, as laid down in the above sections, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate can take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution…. Though, such evidence either oral or documentary was not mentioned in the list of witness/documents filed with the police report (charge sheet) under Section 173 CrPC, copies of the statements or documents be furnished to the accused, to enable him to avail the right of cross-examination”, the Court observed.
The Court asserted that to protect the rights of the accused, the Prosecution must provide copies of witness statements or documents collected during the investigation but not listed in the charge sheet prior to examining the proposed witnesses. The value of this additional evidence will be determined later in the judgment.
“The right of the accused be protected by instructing the Prosecution to provide the copies of the statements of the witnesses if any, or documents, which were recorded/collected during investigation, but not mentioned in the list of witnesses and documents filed with the Police report (Charge sheet), to the accused, before examining the proposed witnesses”, the Court noted.
The Court reiterated that the purpose of every investigation and trial is not only to administer justice but also to uncover the truth while referring to the case of J.B. Roy v The State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1968 AP 236]. Such uncovering of truth can only be achieved through a fair, just, and thorough investigation and trial. The Court held that the principle of a fair investigation and trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasizes that the Prosecutor, representing the State, must provide impartially all essential facts, witnesses, and evidence before the Court. A Public Prosecutor's role is to secure a conviction and present all evidence in their possession, whether it favors or opposes the accused, and allow the Court to decide.
Therefore, the Court referred to the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors v State of Gujarat and Others [(2006 (3) SCC 374)] and highlighted the important role of courts in ensuring that the trials are conducted fairly and that justice is served. Judges preside over criminal trials and ensure the accused are given their due rights. The Court outlined that a fair trial is not a favor afforded to the accused. It is a legally enforceable right guaranteed by the State to its citizens, for whom the State itself exists.
The Court held that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Pattivada Balaji v The State of Andhra Pradesh
