UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Accused Has Right to Examine Prosecution's Unutilized Witness as Defence Evidence: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, clarified the legal stance on the examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings. The apex court ruled that witnesses listed by the prosecution but not examined during the trial can be summoned and examined as defence witnesses. This judgement, delivered on February 2, 2024, in the case of Sunder Lal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, addresses a critical aspect of witness examination under Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The primary legal point deliberated upon by the Supreme Court was whether a witness, initially listed by the prosecution but not called for examination, can legally be permitted to testify as a defence witness. This question, central to the criminal appellate jurisdiction, pertains to the rights of the defence and the discretionary powers of the trial court in criminal proceedings.

In this case, the appellant, Sunder Lal, sought to examine a witness who was listed by the prosecution but ultimately not examined by them. Both the High Court and the Trial Court had earlier denied this request, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The issue raised was critical in determining the scope of a fair trial and the admissibility of witnesses in criminal cases.

Justice M.M. Sundresh, in the judgement, observed, "In our considered view, both the Courts are wrong in declining the request of the appellant, as factually, the witness sought to be examined on the side of the defence has not been examined by the prosecution." The Court further noted that there is no legal prohibition in examining such a witness as a defence witness, thereby setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court.

The judgement emphasized that "it is for the Trial Court to consider the evidentiary value of the said witness while coming to its conclusion." This indicates a significant acknowledgement of the trial court's discretion in evaluating evidence and underscores the principle of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to examine the prosecution witness as a defence witness. It was also specified that the prosecution retains the right to cross-examine this witness. This decision opens up avenues for the defence in criminal trials to present a comprehensive case by examining witnesses who might have been overlooked by the prosecution.

Date of Decision: 02 February 2024.

Sunder Lal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Latest Legal News