Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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