LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1475Decided 19 Dec 2025
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant (husband) and the deceased were married in 2010 and had a daughter, Aashvi, born in 2013. The deceased's father lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased died by suicide on 5 November 2017 after being subjected to dowry-related cruelty and harassment, including demands for money for a car, house, and motorcycle, and that the husband had an extramarital affair. A chargesheet was filed, trial commenced, and after 21 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the prosecution applied under Section 311 CrPC to additionally examine the minor daughter, Aashvi, as a witness. The Trial Court rejected this application, but the Gujarat High Court reversed that decision and permitted the child's examination, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC, though a wide power, must be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is genuinely indispensable to arriving at the truth: a standard not met here. It found no material on record (not the FIR, the investigation statements, or the complainant's testimony) to show the child was actually present at the scene of the incident; the assumption that she witnessed it was speculative. The Court also noted the child was of very tender age at the time, more than seven years had since passed, and she had been living with her maternal grandparents throughout that period, raising a reasonable apprehension that her testimony could be unreliable or tutored. Since the application was made only after 21 witnesses had already testified, at an advanced stage of trial, allowing it would merely protract the proceedings and prejudice the accused. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's order declining to summon the child witness, directing the trial to proceed.

Lesson Learnt

The power to recall or summon an additional witness at a late stage of a criminal trial is not to be used routinely. It is reserved for evidence that is truly indispensable to reaching the truth, and courts will be cautious about placing weight on the memory of a child witness, especially where there is a real risk of the child's account having been shaped by time or by those she has lived with since the events.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case