Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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