MAYANKKUMAR NATWARLAL KANKANA PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Examination of Child Witness: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order, Citing Delay, Lack of Prior Evidence, and Potential for Tutoring under Section 311 CrPC.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1475
Decision Date: 19-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Facts: The appellant's wife committed suicide. The complainant, the deceased's father, filed an FIR alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. During the trial, after 21 prosecution witnesses were examined, the respondents (complainant) sought to examine the minor daughter of the deceased, Aashvi, as a witness, claiming she was present at the time of the incident. The Trial Court rejected this application, noting the absence of any prior mention of the child's presence in the FIR or during the investigation.
- Procedural Posture: The High Court allowed the respondent's petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order and permitting the examination of the minor witness. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.
- Issue: Was the High Court justified in interfering with the Trial Court's order and allowing the examination of the minor child as a witness at a belated stage of the trial under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when there was no prior indication of her presence at the time of the incident?
- Holding: No, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Trial Court's order. The appeals were allowed, and the Trial Court's original order was restored.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that there was no material on record to substantiate the claim that the child was present at the time of the incident. The FIR, statements during investigation, and the complainant's testimony did not disclose the child's presence. The child was very young at the time of the incident, and a significant time had elapsed, raising concerns about the reliability and potential tutoring of her testimony. The Court also noted that the application under Section 311 CrPC was filed at an advanced stage of the trial, and the power under this section should be exercised sparingly, only when the evidence sought is indispensable for arriving at the truth. Allowing the examination of the child witness would only protract the trial and cause prejudice to the accused. The court stated, "Though the power under Section 311 is wide, it is to be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is indispensable for arriving at the truth."
🔒 For Members Only