Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Numbering of Respondent Witnesses in MC Cases - Respondent witnesses are generally numbered as RW 1, RW 2, RW 3, etc., in seriatim, similar to prosecution (PW) and defence (DW) witnesses, depending on the court's practice ["Dulari Devi W/o Mokil Yadav vs State of Bihar - Patna"].
Court Practice and Variations - Courts often follow a standard format where witnesses are numbered sequentially based on their order of examination. For instance, in some cases, witnesses supporting the respondent are labeled as RW 1, RW 2, etc., and the record of depositions should clearly indicate the date of chief, cross, and re-examinations ["Dulari Devi W/o Mokil Yadav vs State of Bihar - Patna"].
Specific Case Examples - In a case numbered as Sessions Case No. 26 of 2012, witnesses supporting the prosecution and defence were numbered as PW 1, PW 2, DW 1, DW 2, etc. The respondent witnesses' numbering was not explicitly detailed but followed the same seriatim pattern ["Jagdishbhai Arjanbhai Gondalia Patel vs State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"].
Court's Discretion and Record Maintenance - The numbering is primarily for record-keeping and clarity, and courts maintain consistency by assigning numbers in the order of examination. The record should reflect the sequence and the specific type of witness (PW, DW, CW, RW) for ease of reference ["Dulari Devi W/o Mokil Yadav vs State of Bihar - Patna"].
Analysis and Conclusion:In summary, a respondent witness in a criminal case (including MC cases) is numbered as RW 1, RW 2, RW 3, etc., in seriatim, following the same pattern as prosecution and defence witnesses. The exact numbering depends on the sequence of examination and is recorded systematically in the court records for clarity and reference ["Dulari Devi W/o Mokil Yadav vs State of Bihar - Patna"].
In the intricate world of criminal proceedings, understanding procedural details like witness numbering can demystify court processes for litigants, lawyers, and the general public. A common query arises: how is a respondent witness numbered in a MC case? Miscellaneous Criminal (MC) cases, often involving procedural matters under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), follow specific conventions for identifying witnesses. This blog post breaks down the standard practice, drawing from legal precedents and court observations to provide clarity.
Whether you're involved in a trial or simply curious about Indian criminal law, knowing how witnesses—particularly respondent witnesses—are labeled as PW-1, PW-2, and so on, ensures better navigation of case records and judgments. Let's explore this step by step.
MC cases, or Miscellaneous Criminal cases, typically handle interim applications, bail matters, quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC, or other non-trial criminal proceedings. While distinct from regular Sessions or Magistrate trials, they adhere to core CrPC principles for witness handling. Witnesses in these cases, including those called by the respondent (defense), are integrated into the prosecution's witness framework during examination. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
A respondent witness generally refers to a witness examined on behalf of the respondent (accused or opposing party). However, in criminal practice, all witnesses presented by the prosecution side—including those supporting the respondent's position during cross or re-examination—are prefixed with PW for Prosecution Witness. This designation maintains uniformity in court records. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
Respondent witnesses, when examined, fall under PW if aligned with prosecution evidence flow.
In an MC case, a respondent witness is numbered based on the order of their examination or appearance before the court. The standard format is PW followed by a serial number, such as PW-1, PW-2, etc. This sequential numbering corresponds directly to the trial's progression. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
For instance:- The first witness examined is PW-1.- The second is PW-2, and so forth.
This practice ensures easy cross-referencing in depositions, judgments, and records. As noted in legal findings, The numbering of respondent witnesses follows their sequence in the examination process. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
Court judgments illustrate this consistently:- In one case, PW-3 complainant 'T' is the most material witness of the case... PW 2 (wrongly numbered) Ct.... PW-5 is the Bhabhi of the complainant. Here, witnesses are sequentially numbered despite minor errors, emphasizing order of testimony. Mohd. Farhan VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1470- Another example: Gulzar Begum, the complainant, in this case, stepped into the witness box as PW-1. Complainants often start as PW-1. SMT. GULZAR BEGUM vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR- PW-5 who is another... shows continuation in sequence. Mohd. Farhan VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1470
These cases highlight that numbering reflects examination order, even in complex MC or related proceedings.
Witnesses may be recalled for further examination under Section 311 CrPC. Upon recall, they retain their original number or are noted in sequence of re-examination. The numbering can be altered or re-ordered if witnesses are recalled or re-examined, but generally, the sequence reflects the order of appearance. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
This flexibility aids justice without disrupting identification.
Court records, including deposition sheets, use this numbering for precise referencing. The court’s record, including deposition sheets and examination notes, reflect the numbering of witnesses as per their sequence of examination. This numbering helps in identifying and cross-referencing witnesses during the trial and in the judgment. Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253
In MC cases involving summons or commissions:- Witnesses examined on commission or abroad follow court directions but retain sequential consistency. Talari Satyam VS Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 299- Issuance of summons to the other witnesses (2 to 4) in Annexure D shows pre-numbered lists aligning with examination. KMLM Chits India Ltd. VS Siji Bijeesh - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 954
While standard, variations occur:- Hostile Witnesses: A PW turning hostile (e.g., P.W. 2 Jagdish (so called eye-witness) has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile) retains numbering. Ramesh VS State of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 2343- Material Witnesses: Courts assess relevance, like PW-3 complainant 'T' is the most material witness. Mohd. Farhan VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1470- Court vs. Party Witnesses: A witness in a case is different from a party to the case. NBWs for absent witnesses are limited; no judicial remand typically. Katuri Sreenivasa Rao VS State Of A. P. - 2002 Supreme(AP) 1154
In family or NI Act MCs, numbering supports proof: PWs 1 and 2 examined and accused let in Ext.D2. KMLM Chits India Ltd. VS Siji Bijeesh - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 954
Errors like PW 2 (wrongly numbered) occur but are corrected via records. Courts emphasize reliability: The court found the testimonies of the complainant and another witness to be cogent. Quality over quantity prevails. Mohd. Farhan VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1470
In identification parades or abroad exams, sequence holds: Procedures related to examination of witnesses, including those residing abroad, and their identification in the record, supporting the concept of sequential numbering. Talari Satyam VS Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 299
Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on legal precedents and is not specific legal advice. Procedures may vary by court or case specifics—consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
In summary, the PW numbering system in MC cases streamlines witness management, ensuring fairness and order. Understanding it empowers better engagement with legal processes. For more insights, explore related CrPC topics.
References:- Munilakshmi VS Narendra Babu - 2023 7 Supreme 253: Core practice of PW numbering.- Talari Satyam VS Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 299: Special examination procedures.- Mohd. Farhan VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1470, Satish Kumar Bhagat vs The State of Bihar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 311, KMLM Chits India Ltd. VS Siji Bijeesh - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 954, Katuri Sreenivasa Rao VS State Of A. P. - 2002 Supreme(AP) 1154, etc.: Illustrative case examples.
#CriminalLaw #WitnessNumbering #MCCase
Thereafter, police submitted another supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 186 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 against Shravan Yadav (Respondent No. 2), Lalan Yadav (Respondent No. 5), Sunil Yadav (Respondent No. 6), Haldhar Yadav (Respondent No. 3), Kanki Devi (Respondent No. 4). ... — (i) The deposition of each witness shall be recorded dividing it into separate paragraphs assigning paragraph numbers. (ii) Prosecution witnesses shall be numbered as PW 1, PW 2, etc. in ser....
PW-3 complainant "T" is the most material witness of the case. ... It is further stated that PW 2 (wrongly numbered) Ct. ... PW-5 is the Bhabhi of the complainant, she is also a material witness of the case. She has deposed as follows: "She has deposed that on 30.11.2015 at about 7 p.m. she alongwith complainant was going towards village Gandholi. Complainant was ahead of her. ... PW-4 is the IO of the case who unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. 20. PW-5 who is anoth....
However, the case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Court where it came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 26 of 2012. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons. ... As far as witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution are concerned, the first such witness PW 31 – Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Bhuva at Exh.87 though has not been declared hostile, but does not support the case of the prosecution and....
Aziz Nadaf is the informant himself who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Yogeshwar Thakur was examined as a Court witness who formally proved the F.I.R, fardbeyan and the case diary. ... The non-examination of this witness Md. Gafoor again puts a big question mark on the veracity of the prosecution case itself. ... and had even resorted to firing shots, except P.W.6, no other independent witness came to support the case of the prosecution. ... After the ....
Gulzar Begum, the complainant, in this case, stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that: 2019:DHC:1758 CRL.A. ... Zaheen, who has leveled the allegation against the accused Danish (respondent no. 2 herein). Smt. ... Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife .......
Gulzar Begum, the complainant, in this case, stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that: CRL.A. ... Zaheen, who has leveled the allegation against the accused Danish (respondent no. 2 herein). Smt. ... Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife ... doubt on the ca....
Gulzar Begum, the complainant, in this case, stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that: 2019:DHC:1758 CRL.A. ... Zaheen, who has leveled the allegation against the accused Danish (respondent no. 2 herein). Smt. ... Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife .......
O EXAMINE THE WITNESS ANNEXURE XIV TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21-11- 2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION REQUESTING FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE WITNESS,THROUGH ... PETITION DATED 11-11- 2014,SEEKING SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE WITNESS,THROUGH THE POLICE ANNEXURE XI TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ANNEXURE VI PETITIOt file any application for examination of any other witness. ... THE POLICE ANNEXURE XV TRUE COPY OF THE 'B' DIARY PERTAINING TO MC 55/2....
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed in part, with liberty to the first respondent to continue and complete examination of the first witness in Annexure D. Issuance of summons to the other witnesses (2 to 4) in Annexure D, stands set aside. ... Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that, witness Nos.1 to 4 were sought to be summoned to prove the case of the accused that, as per Ext.D2, the name of the accused is not shown as a ....
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the request for calling upon respondent No.2 as a court witness or witness on behalf of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) is totally uncalled for as the said move is nothing but to improve upon the case of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and his evidence ... Whereas, in the instant case, the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) intends to call for the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) himself ....
8. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that this is a case of single witness. P.W. 2 Jagdish (so called eye-witness) has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.
There is no knowing of the fact as to how such E.A was numbered at all. It appears that the decree holder filed counter in E.A.No.359 of 2005 objecting to such an application on the main ground that it was barred by limitation. Whereupon, she filed E.A.No.359 of 2005 on 05.03.1999 to get set aside the exparte order dated 28.11.1996 passed in E.P.No.166 of 1996 without filing any application to get condoned the delay of 796 days as on the date of filing the said application E.A.No.359 of 2005. Whereupon only on 01.04.2011 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ....
7. Witness No. 2 is a witness for the claimant while witness No. 3 is a witness for the Opposite Party Nos. When one of the witnesses for the claimant stated without any ambiguity that at the time of accident the deceased along with his friends were playing Football on the road in a blind curve, such positive statement in view of the evidence of witness No. 3 of the opposite party who is not the first hand Investigating Officer cannot be brushed aside at will.
We fail to see how is Rabin Bhowmick a material witness in this case. The P.W. 14, Madan Bhowmick, accompanied by Rabin Bhowmick went to the house of Sona Hazari and informed the incident to the family members of the deceased including P.W. 5, Mritunjoy Hazari, who is a brother of the deceased. The P.W. 5, Mritunjoy Hazari is the brother of Sona Hazari.
A witness in a case is different from a party to the case. Since Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law, care should be taken to see if person ordered to be sent to judicial remand can be deprived of his liberty under the provision of any statute or not. Parties to proceedings before Court have a duty to attend Court for every hearing. Witnesses, normally, do not have any personal interest in the case or its result.
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
