DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001

Academic Session (2023-2024)

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

“Varsha Garg V. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 Live Law (SC)

662”

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Vivek Vibhushan Kol Mr. Gautam Gupta

BALLB/108/21 Assistant Professor of Law

Semester - V (CrPC,1973)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have made efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to thank our Vice
Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) Shailesh Hadli Sir for awarding us this great opportunity to conduct
research on a topic that has laid the foundation for a highly enriching experience. I would like
to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am very much thankful to Mr. Gautam Gupta (Assistant Professor of Law) for their
guidance and Constant supervision in providing necessary information regarding the project
and also for their support in completing the project.

I would like to thank and appreciate my family and my colleagues for their kind cooperation
and encouragement in developing the project which helped me in the completion of this
project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Thanking You

Vivek Vibhushan Kol

 INTRODUCTION
In this particular case, A lawyer was found brutally murdered outside of his office. Five
individuals were detained. From section 311 of the CrPC contact with the nodal officer of
particular cellular companies and the decoding register in order to find the accused’s mobile
location was denied by the session court.

According to the Supreme Court, a Section 311 CrPC application cannot be turned down
solely on the grounds that doing so would make the prosecution's case more solid. The
authority must be used, in accordance with the judgment of the bench of Justices DY
Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, whenever the court feels that any evidence is required for the
proper determination of the case and is not constrained by the closing of evidence.

Bench
Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT

8th August 2022

About Provisions:

1. Section 34, IPC 1860- “When multiple individuals do criminal conduct in furtherance of
a common objective, each of them is accountable for that crime in the same way as if
they do it alone.”
2. Section 302, IPC 1860 – “This section provides the punishment for the offense of
murder, stating anyone who commits murder faces the death penalty or life
imprisonment, as well as a fine.”1
3. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872- “The section provides for the
admissibility of electronic records. It states that any data contained in an electronic

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Law Library
 record that is printed onto paper, cached, recorded, or replicated in optical or magnetic
media generated by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document, and shall be
admissible in any hearing, without any further proof or production of the original, as
evidence, if the requirements mentioned in this section are met.”2
4. Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- “It empowers any Court, among other
things, to issue a summons to an individual whose possession or authority a document
or thing is presumed to be, if the Court finds the production of the relevant document or
thing essential or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other
proceeding under the CrPC.”
5. Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- “The section provides the authority to
summon a material witness or to question a person who is present. It states that any
Court may summon any individual as a witness or question any person in attendance
who has not been summoned as a witness at any stage of any investigation, trial, or
other procedure under this Code.”3

Facts of the Case

 The appellant was a lawyer's wife who was assassinated in front of his office in
November 2015. An FIR was filed after the murder for an offense covered by Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read in conjunction with Section 34.

 Post Mortem Report- Injury caused by gunshot.

 At the beginning of the trial's evidence gathering, the nodal representatives of Idea, Airtel,
Reliance, and Vodafone were questioned.

 Because the Station House Officer had submitted the additional charge sheet and created
a compact disc with the numbers of the co-phone accused, the prosecution questioned
him. He also acknowledged that he had violated Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
of 1872 by failing to submit a certificate regarding the CD.

2
India Code: Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3
India Code: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 On the day of the hearing that followed, the officer was told to deliver the CD that had
been kept at the police station, but he chose not to. A request to summon the decoding
register was made on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311.

 The prosecution's requested document is irrelevant to the investigation and was not
gathered during the investigation, so the trial court denied the motion for the production
of the decoding record.
 The trial court rejected the prosecution's request for the production of the decoding record
on the grounds that it was not obtained during the investigation and that it was not
relevant to the investigation.

 The case was dismissed on April 8, 2022, by a single judge of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh's Indore Bench. An application under Section 311 CrPC was denied in a decision
made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge on November 13, 2021, and the legality of
that decision was challenged in the appeal.

 In dismissing this petition, the Single Judge of the High Court noted that:
A. The decoding registers were not included in the case file or the chargesheet;
B. The prosecution had finished its testimony; and
C. The application was submitted at a late date without having gathered all pertinent
information.

Issues Raised
How valid was the High Court's decision to throw out the prosecution's application?

ARGUMENTS: BY THE APPELLANT

  It was submitted by the appellant that the production of the decoding register was
critical in establishing the link between the accused's position and the mobile phone
tower and the prosecution submitted the application prior to the closing of evidence, and
it was only after the motion was denied that the order was recorded that the
prosecution's evidence was closed.
 It was argued that in any case, even after the evidence was closed, there was no legal
impediment to making an application under Section 311.
 It was further argued that there was no prejudice against the accused because the
attachments to the additional charge sheet clearly relate to the certificates of the cellular
carriers' nodal officials.

ARGUMENTS: BY THE RESPONDENT

 It was submitted that the nodal officials had already been interviewed, the witnesses
identified the locations, and the necessary papers were already on file.
 It was argued that the prosecution filed four applications under Section 311 CrPC and 53
witnesses were examined. Placing reliance on the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [(2019) 14 SCC 328], it was stated that an application
under Section 311 CrPC should not be accepted as A.
 It is an abuse of the Court's procedure and B. the prosecution's evidence was closed a
long time ago.

Evaluating the Reasoning of the Case

It was held that the State filed an application for the calling of witnesses and the presentation
of the decoding register in this instance. As a result, Section 301's prohibition does not apply.
In relation to Section 311, it was stated that the court's power is not limited by evidence
closing. As a result of the preceding debate, it is abundantly obvious that the vast powers
granted by Section 311 are to be controlled by the need for justice. The authority must be
used if the court determines that any evidence is necessary for a fair determination in the
case. It was stated that the prosecution's endeavor to provide the decoding register, which is a
critical and significant piece of evidence, should not have been hampered. According to
Section 311, calling the witness for the purpose of presenting the decoding record was
necessary for a just determination in the case.
It was stated that the prosecution's endeavor to provide the decoding register, which is a
critical and significant piece of evidence, should not have been hampered. According to
Section 311, calling the witness for the purpose of presenting the decoding record was
necessary for a just determination in the case. Furthermore, relying on the cases of Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 3 SCC 374] and Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v.
Computer Joint India Ltd [(2008) 11 SCC 108], the court held that the filling of loopholes as
a consequence of approving an application under Section 311 is merely a secondary
consideration, and the Court's decision on the application should be based solely on the
essentiality of the evidentiary test.4

CONCLUSION

4
Application Under Section 311 Crpc Cannot Merely Be Dismissed On The Grounds Of It “Filling In
Loopholes” Of The Prosecutions’ Case: Supreme Court - Others,
The bench came to the conclusion that the High Court's ruling, which was challenged in the
appeal, was unsustainable. As a result, it granted the appeal and dismissed the impugned High
Court decision and order, as well as the order of the Second Additional Session Judge
disposing of the prosecution's application. The prosecution's application for the provision of
decoding registers and the summons of cellular company witnesses for that purpose was
granted.

The court ruled that because the decoding registers are merely additional documents needed
to understand the call details that are already on file but use codes to indicate the location of
the accused a crucial detail that can only be decoded through the decoding registers—the
accused's right to a fair trial is not prejudiced. In granting the appeal, it stated that the
production of the decoding registers satisfies the requirement of being pertinent material that
was unintentionally not brought on record.