Back
Anilkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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:
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
