Cr.P.C., Section 311 – Video conferencing - Discretionary powers like those under  Section  311  CrPC  are  essentially  intended  to  ensure  that  every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity in so far as the evidence is concerned as also  to  ensure  that  no  prejudice  is  caused  to  anyone -   Death under unnatural circumstances in Nigeria  - Appellant, mother of the deceased, moved an application under Section 311 seeking summoning of the Doctor who had conducted first post-mortem of the dead-body of the appellant's daughter in Nigeria  through High Commission of Nigeria or to record his evidence through video-conferencing, after issuing a commission for the purpose – Application dismissed by trial court with the observations that the effect of non-availability of the original post-mortem report would be considered at the time of the final disposal of the matter and that trial is going on for 8 years  - Testimony of the said doctor who conducted the first post-mortem in Nigeria is germane to the questions involved in this matter; and for a just decision of the case with adequate opportunity to both the parties to put forward their case, the application under Section 311 CrPC ought to have been allowed - In the given set of facts and circumstances, where the witness is residing in Nigeria, for the purpose of recording of his statement, the Trial Court could have unquestionably taken recourse to the provisions of Sections 284 and 285 CrPC so as to avoid the delay in the matter and inconvenience to the parties and the witness  - In order to avoid inconvenience to the witness as also to the parties, issuing of commission and recording his evidence through video-conferencing appears to be a viable alternative - Trial Court disposed of the application under Section 311 CrPC on entirely irrelevant considerations and the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC while overlooking and ignoring the material and relevant aspects of the case In our view, the said application under Section 311 CrPC deserves to be allowed. 2019 SCeJ 607

 

Cr.P.C. Section 311 - Delay in trial - Though it is expected that the trial of a sessions case should proceed with reasonable expedition and pendency of such a matter for about 8-9 years is not desirable but then, the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record - In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness - Trial Court could have unquestionably taken recourse to the provisions of Sections 284 and 285 CrPC so as to avoid the delay in the matter and inconvenience to the parties and the witness. 2019 SCeJ 607

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 311 - Court is empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings, if his/her evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case - In the instant case, the respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of the maintenance - So, certainly her evidence is essential for the just decision of the case - If due to mistake on the part of her counsel, she was not examined-in-chief as per the provisions of the law, her request to recall and examine herself in support of her petition cannot be declined as the recording of her statement is very essential to the just decision of the case. (178) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 311 - Discretion to recall and examine the witness can be exercised at any stage of the enquiry trial or other proceedings. (178) PLR