No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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.

Similar News