HENRY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 4.1.2007 made in Crl.M.P. No.50 of 2006 in S.C. No.148 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode and set aside the same. 1. The factual matter is as follows: The case in Crime No.865 of 2005 came to be registered on the file of the respondent police against the petitioner on 2.11.2005 under Section 302, IPC. It is alleged that three months prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner picked up quarrel with one Elango in the Brandy shop and they had forgotten about the incident and became friends. 1.1 One Jayanthi, wife of Elango, laid a Complaint stating that her husband was hospitalized with bleeding injuries and she was informed that the accused stabbed the deceased with broken bottle and caused injuries on his neck. The case was taken on file in PPC. No.12 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate, which was later committed to the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode for trial. The trial was over and it is on the verge of completion. A Petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was filed by prosecution before the said Court to examine P.W.8, Arumugam, Inspector of Police (Finger Prints) to mark certain documents. They are as follows: (1) Photo enlargement of chance point marked as "A2", (2) Photo enlargement of specimen right thumb print marked as "accused", (3) Opinion of the Finger Print Expert. 1.2 In the Petition, it is stated that the documents are filed to establish the prosecution case. The allegations in the Petition were confronted in the counter filed on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court by stating that the Petition has been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence, that there was ample opportunity for prosecution to produce all the documents at the earliest point of time, that nowhere it was alleged that under whose custody the documents were kept, that the accused denies the genuineness of those documents and opposes the mode of proof, that the prosecution should have produced all the documents at the time of filing the charge-sheet and that without taking recourse to Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., the filing of present Petition is not maintainable. 1.3 Before entering into the discussion with regard to rival submissions, it is profitable to extract Section 311, Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

(2.) IN order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311, Cr.P.C. are enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding, or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any witness already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. An opportunity of rebuttal is always open to the other party.

(3.) "Trial", within the meaning of the Section terminates with the pronouncement of judgment. Hence term "trial" would include the stage of pronouncing judgment. Until that stage is reached, the law permits the Court to take fresh evidence enabling it by the Section for the just decision of the case. The enquiry or trial in a criminal proceedings finds its quietus when the judgment is pronounced and until then, the Court can exercise power.