Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Trial Court Cannot Restrict Accused’s Right to Lead Evidence - Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a trial court cannot restrict an accused person to proving data only by leading evidence in their defence. The decision was made by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in response to a revision challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, in which an application filed by the petitioner for copies of WhatsApp chat, other network data, and call details of cell phone had been dismissed.

The case involves an FIR under Sections 304-B and 120-B of the IPC, registered on the statement of complainant Vipan Kumar Dhir, father of the deceased victim. The complainant's daughter was married to Gaurav Aadia, who spent Rs. 35-40 lakh on the marriage. She was ill-treated in the matrimonial home for not giving a car in the marriage, and her husband and in-laws were unhappy with the dowry articles. As a result, the daughter was ill-treated, and she used to complain about the conduct of her husband and in-laws. According to the complainant, his daughter was made to consume some poisonous substance by her in-laws and died during treatment.

The issue before the bench was whether the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge needed interference. The High Court noted that the order allowed an application filed by the accused, and the data of the mobile phone, including WhatsApp and Facebook chat, and messages, was retrieved and sent to the CFSL department. The CFSL report was already supplied to the accused, enabling them to prepare their defence in a proper manner.

The bench observed that the trial court could decide the case in a fair manner by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The accused has the right to cross-examine the relevant witnesses by confronting them with the said data; otherwise, they would be deprived of their valuable right to cross-examine witnesses in an effective manner.

The High Court stated that it was the duty of the court to give a fair opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused to lead their respective evidence properly so that the court could reach the right conclusion. The bench ruled that the restriction imposed by the trial court on the accused to prove the data only by leading evidence in their defence was not justified. The second application filed by the accused to supply the data to confront the relevant witnesses did not amount to a review of the previous order. The condition imposed on the accused that they could use the data in defence only was without justification. Therefore,

The bench set aside the impugned order.

Daksh Aadia v. State of Punjab

Case No.: CRR-53-2020 (O&M)

Latest Legal News