NIATSINGH WANNIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 29/6/2022 and 6/12/2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Southwest Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2020 under Sec. 376/506 IPC by which orders the trial court had taken into record the FSL report submitted by the prosecution and also allowed summoning of additional witness on the basis of an application under Sec. 311 CrPC.

(2.) Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the witness who has been sought to be summoned does not appear in the list of prosecution witness provided with the charge sheet filed in the case. He further submits that even the order by which the learned trial court had taken into record the FSL report is totally wrong in view of the fact that the mandate of law as prescribed in Sec. 173(5) and Sec. 173(8) CrPC has been overlooked by the learned trial court. He contends that filing of document by the prosecution at the belated stage of trial is not contemplated in law and the only way of taking into record any fresh document can only be by way of a supplementary chargesheet which requires adherence to the provisions of Sub-Ss. (2) to (6) of Sec. 173 CrPC. He submits that the learned trial court has totally ignored the settled provisions of law and proceeded mechanically to allow the application under Sec. 311 CrPC without recording any valid cause or reason. He also contends that it is not permissible to summon any additional witness at the final stage of the trial and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of High Court of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 407 of 2011 and High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2249 of 2016 to impress upon the Court about the stage of permissibility of filing of supplementary chargesheet in a criminal case.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing for the State respondents contends that submission of the FSL report by the prosecution at a later stage does not amount to filing of a supplementary chargesheet in the matter. He submits that it is only submission of additional document which was done by taking prior permission by the trial court. The learned AAG draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order dtd. 6/12/2023 and submits that at the stage of filing of the charge sheet, the concerned Investigating Officer had made a prayer for submission of DNA FSL report at a later stage which was allowed vide order dtd. 1/11/2013. He further submits that filing of the FSL report at a later stage cannot be equated with the filing of the supplementary chargesheet in terms of Sec. 173 (8) CrPC as the FSL report is not the outcome of any further investigation. He places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 5 SCC 82, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pal and Anr. (para-7), and submits that it is permissible in law to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation. He also submits that there is nothing wrong in the order of the trial court by which the application of the prosecution under Sec. 311 CrPC was allowed as the additional witness sought to be examined is only for the purpose of proving the FSL report and the petitioner will have all the opportunity to cross examine the said witness. He contends that Sec. 311 CrPC allows summoning of additional witness at any stage when evidence of such person appears to be essential for just and proper decision of the case. He submits that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the criminal petition deserves to be dismissed forthwith.