A stranger may even request to examine a witness: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared that a trial court hearing criminal matters is well within its power to entertain a plea for examining a witness even at the instance of “an apparent rank stranger” attempting to intervene unannounced in trial proceedings. This significant ruling could have a significant impact on how witnesses are summoned and examined.

“Peace of a party to the trial, including the accused, prosecution, complainant, and witness, or on its own volition, but also on a plea of a person who is seemingly a stranger to the trial,” Justice Sumeet Goel claimed, a criminal trial court’s ability to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the CrPC.

The statute gives judges the authority to call witnesses, question them in person, or call back and re-interview witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded. Justice Goel issued a warning, stating that the court should “tread more cautiously and carefully” when using its authority in response to an apparent stranger or disinterested individual.

Additionally, Justice Goel made it abundantly evident that a criminal trial judge could not limit his function to that of a spectator or recorder of events; rather, he was required by law to participate in the trial. The decision was made in response to a petition submitted by “relatives” contesting the lower court’s refusal of a request for a victim’s reexamination in a rape and criminal intimidation case that was registered in August 2020 in accordance with the POCSO Act and the IPC.

throughout the hearing, Justice Goel’s Bench was informed that the public prosecutor had pronounced the victim and the complainant-mother hostile throughout the trial. The victim’s family then filed an application under Section 311, but the lower court denied it.

Justice Goel argued that there was no legal barrier stopping the trial court from using its authority based on an oral plea, citing a number of rulings and legal analysis. However, submitting an application would be a more sensible course of action.

Justice Goel denied the petition after considering the relevant circumstances. The Bench said, among other things, that the victim or the complainant-mother had not stepped forward to submit an application under Section 311 for a justifiable cause.