Supreme Court of India· 28 April 2025
When must a criminal court summon a material witness under Section 311 of the CrPC?
K. P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
2025 INSC 576 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1522 OF 2023
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Prashant Kumar Mishra
Answer
The second part of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 uses the word 'shall' and is mandatory: the Court must summon and examine, or recall and re-examine, any person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. The power is wide, may be exercised at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence, and either suo moto or on an application by either side.
Headnote
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 154 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 154(1), 311 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s. 4 - Hostile witness - Registration of FIR - Victim compensation -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 154 - Hostile witness - Evidence not washed off the record -
Held: Evidence of a witness cross-examined by the party calling him cannot be washed off the record altogether. The Court may act on the part it finds creditworthy where corroborated by other reliable evidence, as Section 154(2) now expressly provides. (¶26, 31)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 311 - Material witness - Second part mandatory -
Held further: The second part of Section 311 casts a duty rather than a discretion, obliging the Court to summon or recall any person whose evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. An eyewitness omitted from the charge-sheet may be so summoned. (¶47, 48)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 154(1), 157(1) - Registration of FIR - No informant needed -
Held further: Once the police have information of a cognizable offence, from an informant or otherwise, registration of the FIR is obligatory. That nobody came forward to lodge a complaint is no defence where the officers knew of the crime. (¶69)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(2)(i), 4 - Police officers - Victim compensation -
Held further: Officers who withheld the FIR to save the culprits, and the officer who manufactured an extra-judicial confession falsely implicating members of a Scheduled Caste, were rightly convicted. Compensation awarded; appeals dismissed. (¶74, 75, 76)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 47Before moving further, we consider it necessary to deal with the law relating to section 311 CrPC under which PW-49 was summoned as a witness. Section 311 CrPC reads as follows:
Paragraph 48As is clear from the language of the provision itself, there is a wide discretion with the Courts under Section 311 CrPC. These powers can be exercised suo moto or on an application moved by either side. After all, 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. As discussed above, powers under Section 311 CrPC can either be exercised on an application moved by either side to the case or suo moto by the Court. In case a person is not listed as a witness in the charge-sheet but later, the prosecution desires to bring that person as an additional prosecution witness, then the prosecution can move an application to bring this person as a prosecution witness. It is then for the Court to decide whether such a person is required as a witness or not. 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.
Acts & Sections
s.154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.155 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.165 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.311 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.154(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.157(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.162 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.217 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.218 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.3(2)(i) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s.4 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of K. P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →