The Supreme Court has held that a trial court can permit an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to examine crucial witnesses even after the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC has commenced, particularly where the prosecution has failed to examine material witnesses.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the ruling while allowing the appeal filed by Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh, an injured complainant in a criminal case pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Gopalganj, Bihar.
The case arose out of an altercation in which the appellant and his father sustained injuries. According to the case, Accused No.1 allegedly attacked the appellant's father with a spear, while Accused Nos.3 and 4 were alleged to have assaulted him with an iron rod. Accused No.2 was alleged to have struck the appellant on the head with a sword.
Following investigation, charges were laid only against Accused Nos.1 and 2, while proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4, both women, were dropped.
The trial commenced in 2017 and had substantially progressed when the appellant moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking examination of certain crucial witnesses.
By that time, the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC had commenced on April 13, 2024.
The Trial Court rejected the Section 311 application, treating it as an attempt to delay the proceedings and to fill lacunae in the evidence already recorded. The Patna High Court subsequently upheld the order.
The Supreme Court disagreed with both courts.
The Bench observed that the appellant and his father were injured in the incident, yet the appellant's father had not been examined. Further, two important witnesses—the Medical Officer who treated the injured persons and the Investigating Officer—had also not been examined.
The Court noted that their absence could potentially result in an acquittal because of the shortcomings in the prosecution case.
The Bench observed that the present case involved a “clear failure of the prosecution to properly conduct the trial” and held that the concern about filling lacunae could not justify excluding crucial evidence when the prosecution itself had failed to properly present its case.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the orders of both the Trial Court and the High Court and restored the appellant's application under Section 311 CrPC.
The Court directed that the prayer for examination of the injured witness, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer must be permitted.
It further directed that if the prosecution seeks to examine any other witnesses whom it had earlier left out, the Trial Court must consider such requests as well.
The witnesses are to be examined and made available for cross-examination.
Since the Section 313 proceedings had already commenced, the Supreme Court directed that they should resume from the stage where they had stopped. Any incriminating circumstances emerging from the newly recorded evidence must also be put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC.
The Supreme Court also issued an important caution regarding the role of trial courts.
The Bench stated that where there is a total failure of the prosecution, the court should promptly question why crucial witnesses have not been examined.
The Court emphasised that a Trial Court is not a mere “moot spectator” and, while remaining an unbiased adjudicator, has a responsibility to ensure that the best evidence is not suppressed.
In the present case, the Court particularly noted the failure to examine both the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer, describing them as crucial witnesses.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the above directions.
Case: Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Supreme Court: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12169 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Order: August 24, 2026
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Adv. Mr. Suyash Rawat, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy