Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.Babu, J.
Anilkumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.M.C.No.926 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' application to summon witness. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. defense rights and fair trial implications. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. apex court's stance on evidence. (Para 13 , 16) |
| 5. court’s discretion on evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. delay cannot deny defense rights. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. final order to quash earlier ruling. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
K.Babu, J.
The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is to the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kalamasery, in CMP No.2895 of 2022 in C.C.No.1584 of 2016. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3, respectively, in the abovementioned Calendar Case.
2. The petitioners face charges under Sections 498 A and 324, read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. After the closure of the prosecution evidence and the examination of the petitioners/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners applied to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, to be examined as defence witness.
4. The petitioners proposed to examine the Assistant Commissioner of Police to establish that the investigation made by the Police was biased. The petitioners also wanted to establish custodial torture of Petitioner No.1 at the instance of the de facto complainant (PW1) by the Police.
5. The Trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioners. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"9. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the examination of the witness sought by accused will not in any way disrupt the case of the prosecution. Even if the witness sought to be examined by the accused in the witness list is examined, that will not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. Crime is of the year, 2014. In my view, this will protract the trial of this case without any use and it is unwarranted. Hence, the petition is only liable to be dismissed."(sic)
6. Heard, Sri.Prasun S., the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that what should be the nature of the evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court, and it is the accused who knows how to prove his defence.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer on the ground that the attempt of the petitioners is to prolong the trial.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigation made by the Police, which led to the submission of the final report, was biased, which could be established only by examining the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioners/accused could not be held liable for the prolonged pendency of the matter, and the same alone could not be a ground to deny the opportunity of the petitioners to lead evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence.
10. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer to Sec. 243 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"243. Evidence for defence.- (1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such. process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing:
Provided that, when the accused has cross- examined or had the opportunity of cross- examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is nece
AI
The accused has an absolute right to summon witnesses in defense, and the trial court must allow such requests unless there are cogent reasons to deny them.
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.
The accused has the right to present defense witnesses in a trial, and the trial court must issue summons unless there are valid grounds for refusal, ensuring that fair trial rights are upheld.
The court emphasized the accused's right to summon witnesses, highlighting the necessity for the trial court to provide justifiable reasons for any refusal.
A complainant's right to introduce additional witnesses under Section 254(1) of the CrPC must be supported by timely requests and relevant justifications, particularly to ensure fair trial standards ....
The accused has an unfettered right to summon witnesses essential for the defence, and the trial court's discretion to reject such requests is limited to preventing vexation or delay.
The accused's right to summon defense witnesses is fundamental and must be upheld unless there are compelling reasons to deny such requests.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
