Gurarpan Chauhan v. State of Punjab
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
CRM-M 48333/2019 (O&M)
Before Justice Manoj Bajaj
Decided on January 08, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Revision petition challenging the re-examination and addition of witnesses in a kidnapping case

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 148, 149, 171, 201, 307, 323, 324, 364A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506)
• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29, 61, 85)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 311)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant’s son and driver had left their factory in their BMW car. The driver made a phone call to the complainant, on which the latter heard his son crying, and then the call was disconnected.
• Consequently, the complainant got two phone calls. The kidnappers informed him that they were in police uniforms and kidnapped his son. They demanded a ransom of ₹5 crores.
• The complainant paid them the demanded money, and they fled away.
• The complainant filed an FIR alleging all the accused persons for kidnapping his son. They also filed for trial for the re-examination of PW-22 and the examination of three additional witnesses. The trial court allowed this application.
• Thus, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition to challenge the trial court’s order.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
  • The petitioner has been languishing in jail for a long. The prosecution is delaying the trial without justifiable reason.
  • The court issued the direction to complete the trial within six months and again conduct it on a day-to-day basis.
• The State’s counsel contended that:
  • Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allows a party to lead additional evidence to facilitate the trial court’s conclusion.
  • Most witnesses are formal; therefore, the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Opinion of the Bench

• Additional witnesses would facilitate the court in arriving at a just conclusion.
• The evidence adduced is not only relevant, but it would also not cause any prejudice to the accused. Thus, the re-examination of PW-22 is not justified.

Final Decision

• The court partly allowed the petition by setting aside the re-examination of PW-22. However, the court allowed the examination of three additional witnesses.