Case Details : KP Tamilmaran vs State SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023 and connected cases.
The Supreme Court held that an additional witness summoned as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be examined as a Prosecution Witness if the Court finds that such a person ought to have been examined as a prosecution witness but was omitted due to oversight.
The Court also held that the powers under Section 165 (judge’s power to put questions or order production) of the Evidence Act are complementary to Section 311 (power to summon a material witness, or examine person present) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and can be exercised by either party to the case or Suo moto by the Court when either party wants to bring a person as an additional witness at any stage of the trial even when evidence is closed.
the object is that the Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. Thus, Courts have been given wide powers to decide on their own if a witness is required to be called or recalled for examination or re-examination. This power under Section 311 CrPC can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence. Section 311 CrPC can also be read along with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, as the powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act are complementary to Section 311 of CrPC.
In the present case, the Court found that PW-49(step-mother of Murugesan), who was the eyewitness, was not cited as a witness in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. It was only later during the trial that an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC, summoning her as an additional witness. However, this was challenged on the grounds that she should have been called as a ‘Court witness’ and not a prosecution witness because of the apprehension that she could turn hostile and this would ultimately benefit the accused persons.
The bench made a distinction between summoning a person as an additional witness and a court witness and said that the former allows a lot of discretion, whereas, in the latter, the cross-examination is restricted in terms of the fact that only through the person of the Court that the parties can cross-examine the court’s witness.
” If the Court finds that such a person should have been examined as a prosecution witness and he/she was omitted from the list of witnesses due to some oversight, mistake or for any other reason, the Court may allow the application and such a person can be examined as a prosecution witness. Thereafter, the normal course of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, etc. would follow as per the procedure. . On the other hand, when the Court calls a person as a Court witness, there are some restrictions regarding the cross-examination of such witness.”
This is when neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision. The Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act and call such a person as a Court witness.
In the instant case, the Court held that there was nothing wrong with the Trial Court summoning the witness as a Prosecution Witness.
The case involved the dastardly murder of a young inter-caste couple, S Murugesan and D Kannagi, who were poisoned by the girl’s father and brother. Murugesan was a graduate in Chemical Engineering and belonged to the Dalit Community. Kannagi was a commerce graduate and belonged to the Vanniyar community.
The couple were secretly married on May 5, 2003. When Kannagi’s family came to know of the marriage, they apprehended the couple on July 7, 2003, just as they were about to leave town and made the couple drink insecticide(poison), which resulted in their death. Their bodies were later burned.
The murder of the couple was regarded as one of the first case of “Honour Killing” in the State of Tamil Nadu. The investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI after a botched police investigation.
In 2021, the trial court awarded death sentence to Marudupandian, Kannagi’s brother, and sentenced 12 others, including her father, to life imprisonment. In 2022, the Madras High Court commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to a life sentence and confirmed the life sentence of ten others, including her father. Two persons were acquitted.
Today, the Supreme Court also directed the grant of Rs 5 Lakhs compensation jointly to the father and step-mother of Murugesan.
