Allahabad High Court: While dealing with a criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) challenging an order of the Trial Court whereby, an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for the re-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 was rejected, Subhash Vidyarthi, J., dismissed the revision application and upheld the Trial Court’s decision and said that according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), kanyadan was not deemed essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage. The Court held that the power under Section 311 of the CrPC must be exercised only when it is essential to summon a witness for just decision of a case.
Background
The instant criminal revision was filed by the revisionist herein challenging an order of the Trial Court, rejecting an application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling witnesses. The basis for filing of the said application was that according to the revisionist, there were some discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses in their examination-in-chief and in their cross examination. As per the impugned order, the marriage certificate filed by the prosecution mentioned that the marriage was solemnized 27-02-2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, as per which, kanyadan was an essential ritual, and hence, to ascertain this fact a re-examination of PW-2 was necessary.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court emphasized that while it possesses the authority to summon any witness under Section 311 of the CrPC, this authority cannot be invoked casually at the mere request of a litigant. The Court said that the power must be exercised only when it is essential to summon a witness for just decision of a case. The Court noted that the present revisionist had stated that he was desirous to re-examine PW-1 and PW-2 as there were some discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 recorded during her examination-in-chief and her cross-examination. The Court stated that the discrepancies in the examination and cross examination of a witness do not give rise to a ground for recall of the witnesses and for calling another witnesses.
Additionally, the Court in view of Section 7 of the HMA, expressed that it only mandates the ‘saptpadi ceremony’ as essential for a Hindu marriage, without requiring the kanyadan ceremony for solemnization of a Hindu marriage. Therefore, the Court viewed that whether the kanyadan ceremony occurred or not was not crucial for a just decision in the case. Consequently, the Court said that the witnesses cannot be summoned under Section 311 CrPC to establish this fact.
The Court, therefore, upheld the Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the revision petition.
[Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1018, Order dated 22-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for Revisionist: Advocate Girdhari Lal Yadav, AdvocatePriyanka Pal, Advocate Satendra Kumar, Shivesh Yadav
Advocate for Opposite Party: Government Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
