Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Allowing Examination of Minor Child Under Section 311 CrPC; Holds Belated Testimony Not Essential for Just Decision and Risks Prejudice

Case Name: Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Another v. State of Gujarat & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1475
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 December 2025
Bench: Vikram Nath, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 311 CrPC to permit examination of the minor daughter of the deceased at a highly belated stage of trial, when there was no contemporaneous material indicating her presence at the time of the incident and when her proposed testimony was not shown to be essential for the just decision of the case. The Court emphasised that speculative assumptions regarding a witness’s presence, coupled with the vulnerability of memory at a very tender age and the risk of tutoring, disentitle the prosecution from invoking Section 311 CrPC after completion of examination of a substantial number of witnesses.

Summary: The appellants were facing trial for offences under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of the alleged suicide of the deceased wife in November 2017. After examination of 21 prosecution witnesses, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to examine the minor daughter of the deceased, who was about four years and nine months old at the time of the incident, claiming she was present in the house. The Trial Court rejected the application, noting that neither the FIR nor statements recorded during investigation disclosed the child’s presence and that the application was moved after unexplained delay. The High Court set aside this order, treating the child as a potential eyewitness. The Supreme Court, after examining the record, found no material supporting the claim that the child witnessed the incident, highlighted the lapse of more than seven years since the occurrence, and held that permitting such testimony would be speculative, unreliable, and prejudicial to the accused, contrary to the limited and cautious exercise of power mandated under Section 311 CrPC.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the common order of the Gujarat High Court dated 27 November 2024, restored the Trial Court’s order dated 30 March 2024 rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. All pending applications stood disposed of.