Iddar & Ors VERSUS Aabida & Anr

Author: Devansh, Integrated Law Course, Faculty Of Law, University Of Delhi

The case was filed by a dispute concerning an offense regarding dowry. The sister of the complainant had accused her in-laws of torturing her for dowry, and when the complainant went to see her sister, she herself was allegedly assaulted. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, but Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) were included after a new complaint. The trial court refused to recall the statement of the complainant under Section 311 CrPC, but the order was subsequently quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

On 17th February 2005, the elder sister of the complainant filed a complaint at a police station stating that she was married to Shri Sakeel and later tortured and demanded dowry by her in-laws. When the complainant went to see her sister, she allegedly found multiple wounds on her body. It was also accused that both the sisters were assaulted, and the complainant was raped by the in-laws of her sister and their relatives. An FIR was then registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. No case was registered under Section 376 IPC (rape) at that point.

Subsequently, on April 24, 2005, another complaint was lodged at another police station about the same incident, and this time, a case was instituted under Section 376 read with Section 120B IPC. The accused persons were arrested, and their bail petition was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants had argued that the case had been settled amicably, and the complainant had provided an inconsistent statement at the trial court with her initial statement given in the course of investigation. Later, a Section 311 application was moved to recall and re-examine the complainant's statement but was rejected by the trial court on January 13, 2006, on the ground that the prosecution was attempting to supply lacunae in its case.

The aggrieved party thus filed an application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which on February 20, 2006, set aside the order of the trial court and permitted the recalling of the complainant's testimony. The accused, asserting they were not provided an opportunity to be heard before this order could be made, filed an application to recall the order of the High Court. But their application was rejected on March 2, 2006, without serving them with a notice or implementing them as parties. The appellants therefore objected to these orders, claiming that the High Court had overturned the order of the trial court without giving any reason and that they had not been accorded a fair hearing.

The case hinged on interpreting Section 311 CrPC, which authorizes the court to issue a subpoena or recall the witnesses if their testimony is thought to be of importance in an orderly decision. The Supreme Court questioned whether proper discretion was utilized by the High Court under the said provision or if the appellants' right to be heard was infringed upon in so doing.

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

1. Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband.

2. Section 406 IPC – Criminal breach of trust.

3. Section 376 IPC – Punishment for rape.

4. Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

1. Section 311 CrPC – Power to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness if their testimony is essential for a just decision.

2. Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice.

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

The appellants argued that the High Court had wrongly intervened in the decision of the trial court without giving them a chance to be heard. They argued that the trial court had rightly dismissed the application of the complainant under Section 311 CrPC, as it was an obvious attempt to complete lacunae in the prosecution case. The defense argued that after the complainant had already made a contradictory statement before court, recalling her testimony would subject the accused to undue influence and prejudice.

Further, the appellants contended that the second FIR, involving Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), was lodged with mala fide intention and constituted an abuse of the process of law. They pointed out that the first FIR, under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, did not mention rape at all, casting suspicion over the genuineness of the subsequent charges. They also pointed out that the conflict had been resolved amicably, and thus the prosecution had no reason to reopen the case.

Arguments by the Respondents (Complainant & Prosecution):

The prosecution and the complainant contended that the High Court had properly invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to provide a fair trial. They asserted that the testimony of the complainant was necessary in order to make a just decision, as some points of her earlier statement required clarification. The prosecution claimed that Section 311 CrPC permits the recall of witnesses at any stage of the trial if their evidence is required for a fair determination of the case.

In addition, the respondents argued that the charges against the accused were serious and included rape and harassment of the bride. The court should not let technicalities in procedure stand in the way of substantive justice. They maintained that if the decision of the trial court was not set right, it may result in an unjust verdict as important evidence would not be put on record.

To the accused's assertion that the second FIR was an abuse of process, the prosecution countered that the victim had initially been reluctant to reveal the extent of her ordeal. They averred that the further charges of rape and conspiracy were disclosed later because of the complainant's trauma and fear of retaliation. Accordingly, they asserted that the second FIR was justified, and the High Court had been within its powers in permitting the recall of the complainant's evidence.

The Supreme Court of India considered the order of the Rajasthan High Court in reversing an order of the trial court without considering the hearing of the accused. The matter concerned charges of rape and harassment by dowry. A first information report had initially been registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, but following a second complaint, rape charges under Sections 376 and 120B IPC were added to it. The trial court had dismissed an application under Section 311 CrPC, asking to recall the statement of the complainant on grounds that it was an endeavor to fill in lacunae in the case of the prosecution. The High Court, however, later cancelled this order under Section 482 CrPC without giving notice to the accused.

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's ruling was incorrect because it did not give sound reasons or hear the accused prior to quashing the trial court's order. The Court reiterated that fair procedure is essential in criminal trials so that prosecution and defense are provided with a fair opportunity to place their case.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a challenge against a Rajasthan High Court order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The case arose from a complaint that the in-laws of the complainant's sister harassed her with dowry and beat her up. The complainant additionally complained of rape by family members of the in-laws. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, but no case under Section 376 (rape) was instituted. A second complaint was subsequently lodged in another police station with charges under Section 376 read with Section 120B IPC.

The accused were arrested and their bail was refused. In the course of the trial, the statement of the complainant was deviating from what she had stated during the investigation. The defense asked to have her re-examined under Section 311 CrPC, but the trial court dismissed this application on the grounds that the prosecution was trying to complete lacunae in its case. The aggrieved then petitioned the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, and it granted her request and overruled the ruling of the trial court. The accused petitioned to recall this ruling, which was denied by the High Court.

In appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had failed to give adequate reasons for reversing the order of the trial court. The Supreme Court stressed that where an application under Section 311 CrPC is refused, the prosecution cannot utilize the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to circumvent due process without justifiable reasons. It stated that the orders of the High Court could not stand and quashed the impugned orders, affirming the role of procedural protection in criminal trials​.

The Supreme Court in this case largely addressed the exercise of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which enables a court to issue a summons or recall witnesses if their evidence is necessary for an equitable verdict. The case was based on complaints of dowry harassment and rape, where the complainant's statements at the time of investigation conflicted with his later testimonies in the court. The trial court dismissed the request of the prosecution to recall the complainant for re-examination, viewing it as an endeavor to bridge loopholes in the case of the prosecution. This was, however, reversed by the Rajasthan High Court under Section 482 CrPC, hence the appeal before the Supreme Court​.

The Supreme Court reinforced the significance of Section 311 CrPC, with the emphasis being that courts must perform their role of dispensing justice by summoning or recalling witnesses as needed. It said that though the power under Section 311 is discretionary, it becomes obligatory if the court considers additional evidence important for the delivery of justice. The decision further enshrined the tenet that courts should avoid abuse of procedural laws and yet ensure proper trials. The case brought into sharp focus procedural protections at criminal trials and the judiciary's role in balancing fairness and justice.