Court affirms prosecution's right to summon omitted forensic expert under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to ensure a fair trial.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C.S. Dias, has dismissed a petition filed by Jollyamma Joseph, challenging an order by the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The order in question allowed the prosecution to summon an additional witness, Smt. Remya K.K., Assistant Director (Documents), from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur. This decision is pivotal in the ongoing trial arising from Crime No. 189 of 2011, which involves serious charges including murder and forgery.
The petitioner, Jollyamma Joseph, argued that the prosecution's move to introduce the forensic expert at a late stage in the trial was an attempt to fill lacunae in its case, thereby prejudicing her right to a fair trial. Her counsel contended that the charge sheet made no mention of the disputed documents being sent for forensic analysis or the receipt of reports, suggesting that this was a belated attempt to strengthen the prosecution's case.
Contrarily, the prosecution maintained that the omission of the expert's name from the witness list was inadvertent, and the forensic reports had already been included in the court records. The prosecution had sought permission to send documents for forensic analysis before the charge sheet was filed, due to the impending expiration of the statutory period for filing.
Justice C.S. Dias, referencing Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, underscored the court's discretion to summon or recall witnesses to ensure a just decision. The judgment emphasized that the court's role is to facilitate a fair trial, which includes fairness to the prosecution and society, not just the accused. The court found no inherent weakness or irreparable lacuna in the prosecution's case, but rather a correctable oversight.
The High Court, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court cases such as Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell and Tamilmaran K. P. v. State, reiterated that courts should be magnanimous in allowing rectifications that further justice. The judge noted that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the forensic expert, thereby ensuring no prejudice to her defense.
The decision is a reaffirmation of judicial principles that balance the rights of the accused with the need for comprehensive evidence in criminal proceedings, marking an important precedent in the administration of criminal justice.
Bottom line:-
The power conferred upon a criminal court under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 311 CrPC), is wide and enabling, allowing the court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine witnesses at any stage of the trial to ensure a just decision.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 348, Indian Penal Code Sections 110, 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 475, 302, 201, Poisons Act, 1919 Section 2 r/w Section 6(2).
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2921923
