Legal Review and Analysis of Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Anr 2025 INSC 1475

Case Synopsis

Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr., 2025 INSC 1475.

Synopsis :  The Supreme Court ruled that the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC to summon witnesses cannot be invoked on speculative grounds at a belated trial stage, especially for a child witness of tender age where reliability is suspect and risk of tutoring exists. The Court restored the trial court's order, emphasizing that such power must be used sparingly and only when the evidence is indispensable for a just decision.

1. Heading of the Judgment

• Case Name: Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

• Citation: 2025 INSC 1475

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih

• Disposition: Appeals Allowed.

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 311 (Power to summon material witness, or examine person present).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives), 306 (Abetment of suicide), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), 506(2) (Criminal intimidation), 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed).

• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 7 (Cognizance of offences).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 118 (Who may testify).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Facts of the Case
  The appellants were accused of driving the wife of Appellant No. 1 to suicide in November 2017. An FIR was registered nearly a month later under Sections 498A, 306 IPC, etc.
  The trial commenced, and the prosecution examined 21 witnesses.
  At this advanced stage, the prosecution (respondents) filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to examine the minor daughter of the deceased, Aashvi, who was about 4 years and 9 months old at the time of the incident.
  The Trial Court rejected the application, citing the tender age of the child, the lack of any mention of her presence in the FIR or investigation, and the unexplained delay.
  The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the examination of the child witness. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court.

• Issues Before the Supreme Court
  Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to examine the minor child as a witness at a belated stage of the trial.

• Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
  The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and restored the Trial Court's order, based on a three-pronged reasoning:
  Absence of Foundational Fact: There was no material on record (FIR, investigation statements, or testimony of 21 witnesses) to substantiate the claim that the child was present at the scene of the incident, let alone being an eyewitness. The assumption was speculative.
  Unreliability and Risk of Tutoring: The child was of a very tender age (approx. 4 years) at the time of the incident, and over seven years had lapsed. Memory at that age is vulnerable to distortion. Her continuous residence with her maternal grandparents (the complainants) raised a reasonable apprehension of tutoring, affecting the reliability of her testimony.
  Belated Stage and Lack of Necessity: The application was filed after the examination of 21 prosecution witnesses. The wide power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence is indispensable for a just decision. The prosecution failed to establish this necessity. Allowing it would only protract the trial and cause prejudice to the accused.

4. Core Principle and Judicial Analysis

Title: Judicial Restraint in Summoning Witnesses: The Indispensability Test under Section 311 CrPC

Main Issue Body
The core issue addressed was the correct judicial approach towards applications filed under Section 311 of the CrPC, especially at a belated stage, for examining witnesses whose evidentiary value and reliability are highly suspect.

Analysis and Explanation:
This judgment underscores that the discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC is not an unbridled right to fill lacunae in prosecution evidence but a judicial tool to subserve the cause of justice.

1. Guarding Against Speculative and Prejudicial Evidence: The Court emphasized that the power to summon a witness cannot be based on mere assumption or speculation. The prosecution must lay a foundational basis for why the witness's testimony is suddenly essential. Here, the belated claim of the child being an eyewitness, absent from all prior records, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court as an afterthought.

2. Child Witnesses: Scrutinizing Reliability Over Admissibility: While Section 118 of the Evidence Act states that every person is competent to testify, competence is different from credibility and reliability. The Supreme Court highlighted practical realities: the fragile memory of a then-4-year-old after 7 years, and the undeniable risk of tutoring given the child's living circumstances. The Court implicitly held that allowing potentially tutored or unreliable testimony can be more prejudicial to a fair trial than excluding it.

3. The "Indispensability" Threshold for Belated Applications: The most significant principle reaffirmed is that as a trial progresses, the standard for invoking Section 311 becomes stricter. The Court clarified that the test is not mere relevance but whether the evidence is "essential for the just decision of the case." A belated application, particularly after the examination of numerous witnesses, must overcome a high threshold to prove that the evidence is crucial and could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence. The prosecution failed this test.

4. Balancing Rights: The judgment balances the prosecution's duty to present evidence with the accused's right to a fair and expeditious trial. Permitting a witness of dubious reliability at a late stage protracts proceedings and unfairly disadvantages the defence, who must counter allegations that surfaced years into the trial.

5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It set aside the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court dated 27th November 2024 and restored the order of the Trial Court dated 30th March 2024, which had rejected the application to examine the minor child witness. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial.

6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Mayankkumar Natwarlal vs State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order primarily because?
(A) The minor child was unwilling to testify.
(B) The prosecution had already examined more than 20 witnesses.
(C) The evidence of the child witness was not shown to be indispensable for a just decision of the case.
(D) The offence under Section 306 IPC does not allow child witnesses.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's reasoning in this judgment, which of the following was a key factor in rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC?
(A) The child was below 12 years of age.
(B) There was a reasonable apprehension of tutoring due to the child's long residence with the complainants.
(C) The defence counsel objected strongly to the application.
(D) The offence involved was of a serious nature.