-
by Admin
19 February 2026 3:14 PM
“In a murder trial, every aspect of investigation must come before the Court — the truth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigidity.” - Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Sanjay Vashisth, delivered a significant ruling reaffirming that the duty of a criminal court is to discover the truth, not to mechanically adhere to technicalities. The Court set aside the order of the trial court that had refused to recall the Investigating Officer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and directed that he be re-examined to depose on all investigative facts, including crucial electronic evidence handed over by a now deceased witness.
Justice Vashisth underscored that “the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised for the cause of justice — to ensure that the real picture of the investigation is placed before the Court in its entirety.”
“CCTV Footage May Rewrite the Case Narrative — IO to Be Recalled for Re-Examination on Omitted Evidence”
The case emerged from a murder trial where the petitioner, Satbir, sought re-examination of the Investigating Officer, Inspector Subhash Singh (PW-12). When he was first examined on July 23, 2025, he merely spoke about the preparation of the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., omitting crucial aspects of the investigation.
During the investigation, on October 18, 2021, Sanjay, Ex-Sarpanch of the village, had handed over a CD and pendrive containing CCTV footage to the IO. The footage, captured at the Study Hub Library, Narela, Delhi, purportedly showed the co-accused Ravinder at that location around 11:48 a.m. to 11:51 a.m., the very time the murder occurred in Village Hadwa.
However, Sanjay died before he could testify. The petitioner therefore urged that the IO’s re-examination was essential to bring on record this crucial evidence that could establish that Ravinder was not present at the crime scene. The trial court, however, rejected the request on September 11, 2025, terming it an attempt to “fill lacunae in the defence.”
“Truth Must Prevail Over Procedural Formalities — Duty of Court Is to Uncover the Whole Picture”
In setting aside the trial court’s order, Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the lower court had adopted a “mechanical and restrictive” approach. He held that “in a case involving the committal of murder, it is incumbent upon the trial court to ensure that the conduct of the investigating officer is impartial, both during investigation and while testifying.”
The Court remarked that every aspect of investigation — especially those touching upon exculpatory or contradictory evidence — must be placed before the court. The failure to do so could lead to an incomplete and unjust adjudication.
The judgment eloquently reminded that, “technical objections like ‘filling lacunae’ cannot override the fundamental right to fair trial and the obligation of the court to discover the truth.”
“When Innocence Is at Stake, Justice Demands Full Disclosure — Court Notes Co-Accused’s Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”
The Court also took note of the peculiar circumstance that the co-accused Ravinder, son of the petitioner Satbir, was initially found innocent during investigation but was later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. This fact, combined with the CCTV footage allegedly showing his presence elsewhere, made it imperative to re-examine the IO.
Justice Vashisth observed that, “when the prosecution itself once found an accused innocent, any material that can clarify his actual presence at the relevant time must be fairly examined. The process of justice cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities when evidence may establish innocence.”
“Section 311 Cr.P.C. Meant to Secure Justice, Not to Be Fetters of Procedure — High Court Restores Fairness to Murder Trial”
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court declared:
“Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to recall PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, along with complete record, for re-examination to disclose and depose all such facts collected during the course of investigation and discussed in the final report.”
By this direction, the Court reaffirmed that the purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to restrict evidence but to enable the court to reach the truth and render complete justice. In cases involving serious offences like murder, justice must not be denied merely because of procedural omissions during earlier examination.
The judgment stands as a compelling reminder that fair trial is the foundation of criminal justice, and courts must not let rigid technicalities obstruct the truth. The High Court’s intervention ensures that the trial proceeds on the full and accurate record of investigation, including the once-overlooked electronic evidence.
As Justice Vashisth observed, “Courts exist to discover the truth; every procedural power, including Section 311 Cr.P.C., must be wielded towards that end.”
Date of Decision: 08 October 2025
