Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11164
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL JALEEL.P @ JALEEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 9089 2023
K.SEENA P.S.BINU
The court reinforced the necessity of allowing defense witnesses in criminal trials to uphold the principles of justice and fair hearing.
Headnote:
Proceedings - Criminal Miscellaneous Case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - The court highlighted the importance of allowing adequate time for defense evidence in criminal trials, emphasizing pragmatic approaches to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought additional time to summon a defense witness after the witness was unavailable for a scheduled court appearance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge's decision to close defense evidence was premature and should have allowed for an extension to produce the defense witness.
Issues: Whether the trial court should have allowed the petitioners additional time to summon a defense witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court is mandated to adopt a pragmatic approach in permitting necessary time for defense evidence to ensure a fair trial.
Final Decision: The order of the trial court is set aside, granting petitioners ten days to produce the defense witness.
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in S.C.No.423/2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod, arising from Crime No.138/2014 of Bekal Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted inter alia under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, after prosecution evidence, at the stage of defense, the petitioners filed a witness list to summon one Dr.S.Gopalakrishna Pillai, Forensic Surgeon, Kannur Medical College, to prove the injuries caused to the victim in this case. The case was posted on 25.10.2023 for examination of the Doctor as a defense witness. But it is stated by the petitioners that there was some inconvenience to the Doctor and he was not able to attend the court on 25.10.2023. Therefore the petitioners submitted Annexure-I petition for granting ten days’ time to examine the defense witness. But, as per Annexure-II proceedings, the Sessions Judge recorded that the defense witness given up and the case was posted for hearing. Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C.
is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. After hearing both sides, I think the learned Judge ought to have allowed Annexure-I petition without closing defense evidence. The petitioners only want some time to produce the defense witness. The trial court should take pragmatic approach in these type of cases. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.10.2023 can be set aside and the petitioners can be given ten days’ time to produce the defense witness.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in the following manner:
1. The order dated 25.10.2023 of the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod, is set aside.
2. The petitioners are given ten days’ time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to produce the defense witness.
