Trial Court Has Discretion To Refuse Summoning Of Defence Witnesses If Application Is Vexatious Or Aimed At Delay: Kerala High Court

"Right to summon defence witnesses is not an unbridled one. When a list of defence witnesses is filed, the court is empowered to refuse a request for issuance of summons if it is satisfied that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay, or for defeating the ends of justice." Kerala High Court, in a ruling dated September 15, 2026, held that while the right of an accused to adduce defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, such right is not absolute and is subject to the trial court’s oversight to prevent abuse of process.

A bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that a court may rightfully decline an application to summon witnesses if the request is found to be made for the purpose of "vexation or delay."

The petitioner was the sole accused in a trial before the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakada, facing charges under the IPC and the POCSO Act. Following the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the petitioner moved an application to summon fourteen witnesses for his defence. The trial court rejected this application, citing the lack of disclosure regarding the purpose of examining such a large number of witnesses and characterizing the move as an attempt to protract the trial.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court acted within its legal authority in rejecting the application to summon defence witnesses. The court was also tasked with determining the extent of the accused’s right to summon witnesses and the conditions under which a trial court may legitimately deny such a request in the interest of preventing delay.

The Court emphasized that the right of an accused to enter upon his defence is an "essential component of a fair trial." However, it clarified that this right is not an unbridled power that can be exercised to derail the judicial process. Any refusal to summon witnesses must be backed by statutory grounds and clear reasoning.

Duty to Provide Reasons for Refusal

The Court reiterated that the trial court cannot exercise its power to refuse summons in a mechanical manner. As established in Muhammed Sahir v. State of Kerala, any refusal must be based on objective satisfaction that the request is vexatious or intended to defeat the ends of justice.

No Absolute Right to Summon Unspecified Witnesses

The Court observed that when an accused submits a list of witnesses without disclosing the relevance or the purpose of their examination, the trial court is well within its rights to scrutinize the application. The mere volume of witnesses cited cannot be the sole factor, but the absence of purpose allows the court to prevent trial stagnation.

"When a list containing a large number of witnesses is filed on behalf of the defence without disclosing the purpose or relevance of their proposed examination, the trial court cannot be faulted for declining to issue summons to all such witnesses."

Relevance Remains the Touchstone

The High Court noted that while it is difficult to determine the relevance of evidence before it is actually presented, the trial court must ensure the judicial process is not weaponized through unnecessary summons. It held that while some witnesses might be deemed irrelevant, the court should exercise this power cautiously so as not to prejudice the defence.

Directing Consideration of Fresh Application

In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner had subsequently filed a fresh application restricting the witnesses to five and clarifying the specific purpose for each. The High Court, while upholding the trial court's order regarding the original vexatious application, directed the trial court to consider the new, focused application on its own merits.

"The learned trial Judge shall consider the said application bearing in mind the statutory right of the accused to adduce defence evidence, as well as the limitations recognised by law."

The High Court ultimately disposed of the petition, instructing the trial court to pass an expeditious order on the revised witness list, ensuring that the accused is granted a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence while maintaining the integrity and pace of the trial.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026