Criminal Procedure Code

Natasha Singh v. CBI

(2013) 5 SCC 741

Facts

Natasha Singh was prosecuted by the CBI in a case involving allegations of corruption, cheating and forged documents.
The prosecution examined approximately fifty-two witnesses over numerous hearings.
After prosecution evidence closed, Natasha Singh was examined under Section 313 CrPC and began leading defence evidence.
When the case reached the stage of final arguments, she applied under Section 311 seeking permission to examine three additional defence witnesses.
The proposed witnesses were intended to prove documents and circumstances supporting her defence.
The trial court rejected the application, reasoning that:
the witnesses were unnecessary;
the application was delayed;
and it appeared intended to prolong the trial.
The High Court affirmed that decision.
Natasha Singh appealed to the Supreme Court. ( )

Whether Section 311 may be used to summon defence witnesses after substantial completion of trial.
Whether rejection of relevant defence evidence merely because of delay violates the right to a fair trial.

Section 311 empowers the court at any stage to:
summon a witness;
examine a person present;
recall a witness;
or re-examine a witness.
Where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, the court has a duty to receive it.
The provision serves:
the prosecution;
the defence;
the victim;
and the court’s truth-seeking responsibility.
The court should consider:
relevance;
necessity;
genuineness;
possible prejudice;
and whether the opposite party can respond.
Delay alone is not enough to exclude evidence.
The power should not fill a dishonest lacuna, but it may correct a genuine omission.
Section 348 BNSS corresponds to Section 311 CrPC. ( )

The proposed witnesses were not shown to be irrelevant or invented.
Their evidence related directly to documents and circumstances forming part of Natasha Singh’s defence.
An accused’s right to present defence evidence is a central part of fair trial.
The prosecution had already received extensive opportunity to present its case through numerous witnesses.
Denying the accused a reasonable opportunity to produce material evidence would create an unequal trial.
The Court distinguished between:
an application designed only to delay proceedings; and
an application seeking evidence capable of affecting the just result.
Even though the request came late, the prosecution could be protected by:
cross-examining the witnesses;
producing rebuttal evidence where permitted;
and obtaining reasonable time to respond.
Therefore, allowing the witnesses would not create irreversible prejudice.
The trial court had focused heavily on speed and insufficiently on relevance.
Speed is important, but it cannot replace fairness.
The Court observed that the purpose of criminal trial is not simply to complete a procedural schedule.
It is to arrive at the truth through a fair opportunity to both sides.
Excluding potentially material defence evidence could lead to conviction on an incomplete record.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the additional defence witnesses be examined.
It held that their evidence was relevant to a just adjudication and that the prosecution could meet it through cross-examination.
The judgment confirms that Section 311 must be used positively where necessary to prevent an incomplete or one-sided trial. ( )