Trial Court Must Proactively Participate In Trial To Ensure Relevant Fact Isn't Left Out : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court held that the non-examination of the lead witness who gave information about the crime would be fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court said that the trial courts must be vigilant to call upon such witnesses for examination whose deposition is essential to arrive at a right conclusion.

“As a matter of fact, the trial Court should have remained vigilant and it was absolutely essential for the Court to have exercised powers under Section 311 CrPC so as to summon and examine Shamlal Garg in evidence because his evidence was essential for a just decision of the case. Section 165 of the Evidence Act permits the Judge to ask any question as he pleases in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant or may order production of any document or thing.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

Observing that the trial court should not be a mute spectator but shall play an active role in the trial to elicit relevant materials necessary for deciding a case, the Judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that:

“A conjoint reading of Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial Court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so.”

Since the most vital witness whose deposition was imperative for arriving at the truth of the matter was not produced by the prosecution and the trial Court took no steps whatsoever to summon him by exercising its powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that non-examination of the said witness at the trial is a fatal lacuna which persuades the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.

In essence, the Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the Appellant-Accused for want of proper examination of the lead witness by the prosecution and trial court.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of charges of kidnapping and abduction framed against him.

'Trial Judge Shouldn't Be A Mute Spectator; Has Duty To Ask Crucial Questions' : Supreme Court While Setting Aside Conviction In Murder Case

If There Are Lapses By Prosecutors, Trial Judges Should Play Active Role In Evidence Process : Supreme Court

Counsel For Appellant(s) Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR

Counsels for Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, A.A.G. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

Case Details: GAURAV MAINI Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Click here to read/download the Judgment