CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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