S. 233 CrPC | Denying Accused's Right To Adduce Evidence Amounts To Denial Of Fair Trial: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that denying an accused the right to adduce evidence constitutes a denial of a fair trial. The order overturned an earlier decision by the Fast Track Court POCSO, Srinagar, which had rejected the accused's application to summon defense witnesses.In his ruling, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani cited Section 233 of the Cr.P.C, which stipulates that if an...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that denying an accused the right to adduce evidence constitutes a denial of a fair trial. The order overturned an earlier decision by the Fast Track Court POCSO, Srinagar, which had rejected the accused's application to summon defense witnesses.
In his ruling, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani cited Section 233 of the Cr.P.C, which stipulates that if an accused is not acquitted under Section 232, they must be allowed to present their defense and adduce evidence.
The section mandates that the judge must issue processes for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of documents unless such applications are made for purposes of vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice.
Justice Wani cited the Supreme Court judgments in Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors and Natasha Singh v. CBI (State), reinforcing the principle that fair trial is the cornerstone of criminal procedure.
Reiterating that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that denying an accused the right to adduce evidence is a violation of their right to a fair trial, the Court observed that "Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner."
Justice Wani further emphasized that this procedural right aligns with the rebuttable presumption established under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. This alignment underscores the necessity for courts to diligently uphold these rights, ensuring that the accused is provided with a fair opportunity to present their defense and that the principles of justice are meticulously followed, the court maintained.
The bench underscored the paramount importance of adhering to procedural rules designed to ensure justice, stating that these rules must be "scrupulously followed."
Referring to the Supreme Court's directions to the courts for ensuring a fair trial, the court added ,
“The rules of procedure designed to ensure justice must be scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same."
The court found that the trial court had not properly considered the accused's application and overlooked crucial legal provisions. Therefore, it ruled that the trial court's order was legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed by the law, ensuring the accused's right to summon defense witnesses.
Case Title: Mohammad Sultan Najar Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 186