Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court

"A bare perusal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that filing of an application by the Public Prosecutor is not a precondition for exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 10, 2026, held that a complainant or victim has the locus standi to request a trial court to summon material witnesses or exhibit documents under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). While dismissing a petition challenging a trial court order in a murder case, a single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the power of the court to summon witnesses is not dependent solely on a formal application being moved by the Public Prosecutor.

The matter arose from a murder trial where, after the closure of prosecution evidence and the commencement of final arguments, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 CrPC. The complainant sought to formally exhibit electronic documents, including WhatsApp chats and Google search history already on record, and to summon two additional witnesses. The trial court allowed this application, prompting the accused to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the complainant lacked the authority to file such an application in a State-run prosecution.

The primary question before the court was whether a complainant or victim possesses the locus standi to file an application under Section 311 of the CrPC in a case prosecuted by the State. The court was also called upon to determine if such an application could be entertained at a belated stage after the closure of evidence and whether electronic evidence could be exhibited without prior forensic examination.

Victim Can Assist Court In Invoking Section 311 CrPC

Addressing the core contention regarding the complainant's locus standi, the court analyzed the Supreme Court's precedent in Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal. The High Court noted that while the victim's counsel plays an assistive role to the Public Prosecutor, they are not precluded from bringing essential evidentiary gaps to the judge's attention. If the victim's counsel finds the examination of a witness necessary, they can request the court to invoke its powers under Section 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Public Prosecutor's Application Not A Precondition

The court firmly rejected the argument that powers under Section 311 CrPC can only be triggered by the State machinery or exercised strictly suo motu by the judge. The bench clarified that the court can exercise this power if it has reason to believe that circumstances for summoning a witness exist, regardless of who brings those circumstances to light. The court stated that the statutory provision by no means can be interpreted to dictate that the court acts only on its own motion.

"It is immaterial that the circumstances have been brought to the notice of the Court by the complainant or by any other person."

No Bar On Belated Applications

Regarding the timing of the application, the High Court concurred with the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in P. Chhagan Lal v. M. Sanjay Saw. The bench reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry or trial, even after the closure of evidence of both sides. The singular benchmark for allowing such a belated application is whether the evidence appears essential for a just decision of the case.

Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence To Be Tested Later

The High Court also upheld the trial court's finding regarding the exhibition of electronic documents, such as WhatsApp chats and search histories. The bench agreed that at the stage of deciding a Section 311 application, the court is not required to adjudicate upon the reliability, genuineness, or probative value of the materials. Formal exhibition does not dispense with the requirement of strict legal proof, and the accused retains the full opportunity to challenge the admissibility of these records during cross-examination.

No Abuse Of Process Under Section 482 CrPC

Finally, the court evaluated the invocation of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judge observed that inherent powers are meant to prevent the abuse of the process of any court. Since the trial court's order was based on sound reasoning and did not prejudice the trial rights of the accused, the High Court found no illegality warranting interference.

"The filing and allowing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law and there is no error or illegality in the impugned order which may be causing injustice to the petitioner."

Concluding its analysis, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused, finding it devoid of merit. The ruling solidifies the participatory rights of a victim or complainant in a criminal trial, ensuring they can actively point out crucial evidentiary requirements to the judge for the just adjudication of a case.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026