Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

SLP (CRL.) NOS.1167-1168/2025

VIKRAM NATH and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ

Overview

The Supreme Court explained the ambit and parameters of the power exercised under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically in connection with the delayed summoning of a juvenile witness. The case concerned a set of appeals based on the Gujarat High Court decision that allowed the prosecution to summon as a witness the minor daughter of the deceased, contrary to the earlier rejection by the trial court. The major dispute centered on whether the recall or summoning of a juvenile witness at such a late stage of the case was necessary for a just outcome or would otherwise work as a cause for prejudice against the accused.

Facts

Appellant No.1 was married to the deceased in 2010, and they had a daughter named Aashvi, born in 2013. On 5 November 2017, the deceased had taken her own life by hanging herself. Almost a month later, on 1 December 2017, the father of the deceased had filed an FIR against the appellants under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 IPC, along with Section 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for the offence of demanding dowry, harassment, and extramarital affair of the husband, which led to the suicide commitment by the deceased.

After the probe, the chargesheet was filed in February 2018, and the trial began. In the course of the trial, although the prosecution had already examined 21 witnesses, they filed another petition under Section 311 CrPC to examine the minor daughter of the deceased, who was said to be present in the house at the time of the incident. At the time of the incident, she was 4 years and 9 months old.

The Trial Court declined the request on the ground that there was no mention of the presence of the child at the time of the incident in either the FIR or statements recorded during investigation. However, the High Court reversed this order on the ground that this child may be an important witness and may be examined after certain formalities.

Legal Issues

• Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the Trial Court’s discretion under Section 311 CrPC.
• Whether the cross-examination of the minor witness after an interval of over seven years and at an advanced stage of the trial was necessary for a just decision of the case.
• Whether such an investigation would presumably prejudice the defendant, taking into account the risk of tutoring and the credibility of the child’s testimony.

Decision

The Supreme Court accepted the appeals and overturned the order passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the vast powers allowed under Section 311 CrPC cannot and ought not to be exercised unless the evidence sought after is the essence for the proper decision of the case. The Supreme Court found that there was no material to support the fact that the child was an eyewitness to the event. The Court highlighted that the child was very young at the time of the event, and there was a substantial period of over seven years, and she had been staying with her maternal grandparents.

The Court further added that she should not be allowed to cross-examine since 21 other witnesses have already been cross-examined. This would cause undue delay in the trial and prejudice against the accused.