Section 311 CrPC allows material witnesses to be summoned and examined by video conferencing when justice requires.

Section 311 CrPC permits summoning a material witness to secure a just decision by bringing before court the best available evidence, and the power is not barred merely because evidence has closed or because no prior Section 161 statement exists. The High Court held that the witness could be examined because refusal would risk excluding relevant facts, while cautioning that the power cannot be used to reopen the case or alter the prosecution's nature. It further held that testimony could be taken through video conferencing where physical attendance would cause hardship and no prejudice was shown, and directed the trial court to facilitate the evidence within a controlled timetable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a material witness could be summoned under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite closure of evidence and the absence of a prior Section 161 statement, and (ii) whether the witness could be examined through video conferencing in the interests of justice.

Issue (i): Whether a material witness could be summoned under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite closure of evidence and the absence of a prior Section 161 statement.

Analysis: The power under Section 311 is wide and is meant to secure the just decision of the case by bringing before the court the best available evidence. That power is not barred merely because evidence has been closed or because the witness was not earlier examined under Section 161. It cannot be denied where the witness is said to be material and the court finds that refusal may deprive the trial of relevant facts. The power must, however, be exercised judicially and not as a device for retrial or to change the nature of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The witness could be summoned and examined under Section 311; the refusal by the trial court was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the witness could be examined through video conferencing in the interests of justice.

Analysis: Recording evidence through video conferencing is permissible where the witness is outside the country or physical attendance would cause unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience, and the method does not by itself cause prejudice to the accused. Although the Delhi Video Conferencing Rules require consent of the accused, the High Court may relax that requirement where undue hardship would otherwise result and a just and equitable course is necessary. In the circumstances, the witness's evidence was directed to be taken through video conferencing, with a limited number of opportunities and a schedule to complete the trial within the time fixed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The witness could be examined through video conferencing, and the trial court was directed to facilitate such examination.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to adduce the witness's evidence within a controlled timetable to preserve both fairness and expedition of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be applied to secure a just decision by permitting essential evidence to be led, unless the request is shown to be an abuse of process or likely to cause serious prejudice, and testimony of a material witness may be recorded through video conferencing where justice so requires.

---