Kodanad Heist-Murder Case | Madras High Court Allows Accused To Examine Former CM Edappadi Palaniswami, VK Sasikala As Witnesses

Justice P Velmurugan noted that the application of the accused to examine the witnesses was not without reason and the same would not cause any delay as further investigation had been ordered in the case. The court thus directed the Sessions Judge to comlete the trial by giving opportunity to both the parties and give an opportunity to the accused to examine the 8 witnesses as sought for.

“In view of the above, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial in accordance with the law after giving opportunities to both the parties. If the prosecution is required to examine any additional witnesses based on the further investigation, the trial should proceed accordingly. After the prosecution's examination of witnesses is concluded, the petitioners must be given an opportunity to examine the eight witnesses mentioned in the petition, viz., (i)Thiru. Edappadi K. Palanisami, (ii) Mrs.V.K.Sasikala Natarajan, (iii)Mrs.Elavarasi, (iv)Mr.N.V.Sudhakaran, (v)Mr.Shankar I.A.S., (vi) Mr.Murali Rambah, IPS Officer, (vii)Mr.Sajeevan and (viii)Mr.Sunil, on the side of the defence,” the court ordered.

The accused persons (petitioners) had challenged the order of the Sessions Judge refusing their plea to examine the witnesses. The petitioners contended that they had a fundamental right to lead evidence in their defence and the failure of the trial court to appreciate the same and consider the importance of the witnesses in substantiating the defence was highly arbitrary and violative of Section 233 of CrPC.

The petitioners argued that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guaranteed right to life and personal liberty also guaranteed the right to fair and just procedure. It was submitted that the provision ensured that the accused had an opportunity to contest the charges levelled against them efficiently. Thus, it was submitted that the Sessions Judge had erred in denying them the right to examine material witnesses.

The State Government on the other hand submitted that the Sessions Judge had acted within the limits of the CrPC and in the interest of justice to ensure that the trial proceeds in a fair, efficient and timely manner. The State argued that the petitioners' application did not fulfil the requirements of Section 233 CrPC and was designed to delay the proceedings without any material or substantive benefit to the defence.

The State argued that Section 233 of CrPC did not give an absolute right to the accused and did not mandate summoning of every witness that the accused wished to examine. It was submitted that the trial court was empowered to refuse the request for witnesses if it is determined that the evidence sought to be led is irrelevant, unnecessary or would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The court noted that in the present case, the accused had contended that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the entire case and that the police had diverted the case to potentially protect certain individuals. The court noted that the trial judge had failed to uncover the true intentions and facts behind the crime by dismissing the petitioners' petition.

The court noted that it was important that both the prosecution and the defence is given an opportunity to present its case as denial of the same would be violative of the legal principles. The court added that any process which compromised the fundamental right, reasonable opportunity in this case, undermined the integrity of the trial and impedes the pursuit of truth.

“Denying the opportunity for both the prosecution and the defense to present their respective cases would likely constitute a violation of legal principles. This violation must be scrutinized carefully, as the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the justice system. The principle of a fair trial requires that both parties be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Any process that compromises this fundamental right undermines the integrity of the trial and impedes the pursuit of truth. Therefore, it is essential that all proceedings be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness and due process for all parties involved,” the court said.

Thus, noting the role each witness sought to be examined by the accused had played in the entire case, the court opined that the request of the accused was not vexatious and was inclined to allow the same.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.I.Romeo Roy Alfred For Mr.K.Vijayan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 475

Case Title: Deepu and Others v State and Others

Case No: Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2021