Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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