SATBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

SATBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Under the facts the recall was necessary for just decision because the issue of similarity/comparison of data arose only after the CFSL expert gave evidence and the appellant had no prior occasion to bring those facts; respondents would not be prejudiced as they could cross-examine, therefore Section 311 recall was justified and orders of the lower courts rejecting recall were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Satbir Singh; Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Order Rejecting Section 311 Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of the Courts below set aside; Section 311 application allowed
Legal Topics
Section 311 Cr PC, Recall of Witness, Re Examination, CFSL Report, Delay in Filing Application, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Procedure Evidence Forensic Science Section 311 Cr PC Recall of Witness Re Examination CFSL Report Delay in Filing Application +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satbir Singh

Appellant

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Order Rejecting Section 311 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of the appellant as a witness for further examination
  2. 2 Whether delay in filing the Section 311 application should be reckoned from the date of first lodging of the complaint or from the date the CFSL expert evidence arose

Ratio Decidendi

Under the facts the recall was necessary for just decision because the issue of similarity/comparison of data arose only after the CFSL expert gave evidence and the appellant had no prior occasion to bring those facts; respondents would not be prejudiced as they could cross-examine, therefore Section 311 recall was justified and orders of the lower courts rejecting recall were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of the Courts below set aside; Section 311 application allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the Courts below set aside
  • Application under Section 311, CrPC for recall of the appellant to be further examined as a witness allowed