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

Evidence Can be Recorded in The Absence of Accused: High Court of Kerala

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided over by Honorable Mr. Justice Gopinath P., dismissed a petition challenging the examination of a witness in the absence of the accused, Manoj T.K., in the Crime No. 231/2022 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur. This decision clarifies the interpretation of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) regarding the presence of the accused during the recording of evidence in criminal trials.

In the case (Crl. MC No. 9412 of 2023), Manoj T.K. contested the procedure adopted by the Fast Track Special Court, Thaliparamba, arguing that the examination of a key witness (PW1) in his absence violated the mandate of Section 273 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel, S.S. Aravind and M.V. Amaresan, relied on several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgment in Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan; (2019) 20 SCC 481, to assert that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused, barring specific exceptions.

However, the High Court, in its observation, noted, "The normal rule is that evidence in a criminal trial shall be recorded in the presence of the accused. However, where the personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with, evidence can be recorded in the presence of his pleader." This statement underscores the court's interpretation that Section 273 Cr.P.C does not strictly limit evidence recording to the accused's presence, except in scenarios explicitly covered by Sections 299 and 317 Cr.P.C.

Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Vipin Narayanan argued that the procedure followed by the Special Court was legal and in accordance with the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the flexibility within the legal framework to record evidence in the accused's absence, provided their counsel is present.

This judgment has significant implications for criminal trials, especially in circumstances where the accused's attendance is not feasible. It clarifies the scope of Section 273 Cr.P.C and reinforces the legal provision for recording evidence in the presence of the accused's pleader.

The High Court's decision reaffirms the principles of judicial process and the balance between the rights of the accused and the practicalities of conducting trials efficiently.

Date of Decision: 11 January 2024

MANOJ.T.K. VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News