CASE DETAILS v. NARENDRA BABU & Anr.

named Respondent No.1 as the main conspirator in the murder of her daughter – However, the sudden change of stance shown by the most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief cannot be a mere coincidence – Therefore, appellant’s sudden somersault, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of infl uencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life – Respondent No.1 has the potential to infl uence the investigation or the witnesses – There is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses – Impugned order set aside, bail granted to Respondent No.1 cancelled – Further directions issued inter alia for providing security to the appellant and her family till their fresh depositions – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 142 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34. [Paras 19, 20, 25, 32] Bail – Misuse of concession of bail – Duty of Courts: Held: Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and eff ective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or infl uence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings – Where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfi ed that there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession of bail, it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of justice to withdraw such concession forthwith. [Paras 21, 22] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Recalling witnesses: Held: The unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an eff ective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial – This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only u/Article 142 but also u/s.311, CrPC, be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto – Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding – A person can be called and examined though not summoned 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. as a witness, or can be recalled, or re-examined so as to throw light upon the imputations – Constitution does not intend to fi ll the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused – The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth – In the present case, the family members of the Deceased are the most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the prosecution – Their stand in the examination-in-chief is diametrically opposite to the one in the cross-examination – Parents and sister of the Deceased resiled from their earlier standpoint where they were agitating vigorously before diff erent forums since the year 2019 – Present is a case fi t for recalling the witnesses PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 (the mother, sister and father of the Deceased) for their further cross-examination to reach an eff ective decision in the subject trial – Constitution of India – Article 142. [Paras 28, 29] Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice – Role of witnesses: Held: Witnesses play a very vital role in bringing justice home, especially in the adversarial system of court trials where the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by bringing persons acquainted with the facts before the courts of justice – Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law – If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the effi cacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered. [Para 26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Exercise of power under: Held: Power to recall witnesses u/s.311 ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a suffi cient ground to infer misuse of concession of bail. [Para 31] Words and Phrases – “cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail” – Discussed – Bail. [Para 23] MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR. 1061 LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES