JAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 2. 07. 2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/st Cases and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 91/03 whereby the application filed by the petitioner Section 311 Cr. P. C. has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner is facing trial under Section 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/st Act before the Trial Court. THE prosecution examined the prosecutrix Meenu as PW2 on 13. 1. 2004. THEre is no dispute that trial is still pending against the petitioner. During the pendency of the trial the accused petitioner filed an application dated 3. 5. 2005 before the Trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. to the effect that on 13. 1. 04 the statement of prosecution witness Meenu was recorded. Smt. Meenu appeared as witness from the custody of his parents and other relatives and was under their influence, therefore, she did not make correct statement. Now Smt. Meenu has married with the accused and she is living with him. The witness is adult and mature. Her School Certificate showing her date of birth was also enclosed. It was prayed in the application that in the interest of justice, the witness PW2 be summoned and her statement be recorded afresh. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the application. Being aggrieved with the same the petitioner has filed this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he did not commit any offence with the prosecutrix but at the behest of her parents the present FIR was registered. Smt. Meenu gave her statement earlier under influence and presence of her parents. Now she has married with the petitioner and she is also living with the petitioner and she wants to give her freewill statement before the Trial Court itself. The trial is still pending, therefore, he moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. but the Trial Court wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner. He further submits that the reasonings given by the Trial Court for rejecting the application are not tenable in the eye of law. The learned P. P. submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly passed the impugned order.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned order. Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. is reproduced here as under :- " Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. " The language of Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. as quoted above clearly shows that the very usage of the words such as `any Court, `at any stage' or `of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', any person and any such person', clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The Second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. ;