Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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