Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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