LI Network
Published on: 28 September 2023 at 15:30 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared that the prosecution is permitted to call any witnesses or present documents, even if they were not originally listed in the court’s documents, as long as such additional evidence contributes to the fair determination of a case.
This decision comes in response to a Criminal Petition challenging a Trial Court’s order, in which the petitioner argued that the prosecution had introduced witnesses not originally listed in the chargesheet to bolster their case.
The High Court emphasized that providing a list of witnesses and documents along with a police report is merely a customary practice and does not restrict the prosecution or the court.
Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi stated, “The list of witnesses/documents filed with the Police report (Charge sheet) filed by the police is only a practice. It does not prevent the Prosecution or Magistrate/Court from examining any other witnesses or receiving documents if they help the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case.”
In this case, the respondent had filed charges under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). A Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case, recorded the accused’s statement under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and scheduled the trial. During the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses and later applied under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon additional witnesses.
The petitioner approached the court under Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the Trial Court’s order. The petitioner claimed that the Trial Court had overlooked the prosecution’s attempt to introduce new witnesses to bolster its case.
The Court referred to Section 254(1) of the CrPC, which mandates that if a Magistrate does not convict the accused under sections 252 or 253, the magistrate must proceed to hear both the prosecution and defense, considering all evidence presented, including oral and documentary evidence, in accordance with the Law of Evidence.
Additionally, the Court noted that Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses and examine or re-examine individuals already examined if their testimony is crucial for a just decision in the case.
The Court clarified that during the evidence stage of trials for session cases, warrant cases, or summons cases, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate has the authority to admit any evidence in support of the prosecution, whether oral or documentary, regardless of whether it was listed in the police report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the CrPC. However, the accused must be provided with copies of these statements or documents to exercise their right to cross-examination.
The list of witnesses and documents submitted by the police is a customary practice and does not preclude the Prosecution or the Court from introducing additional witnesses or documents if they contribute to a just decision.
The Court stressed that, in order to protect the rights of the accused, the Prosecution must provide copies of witness statements or documents collected during the investigation but not listed in the charge sheet before examining the proposed witnesses. The value of this additional evidence will be assessed later in the judgment.
The Court reaffirmed that the purpose of every investigation and trial is not only to dispense justice but also to unearth the truth.
The Court held that the principle of a fair investigation and trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Prosecutor’s duty is to present all essential facts, witnesses, and evidence impartially before the Court, whether it favors or opposes the accused, allowing the Court to make a decision.
The Court highlighted its role in ensuring fair trials, citing the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Others v State of Gujarat and Others (2006).
The Court emphasized that a fair trial is not a favor bestowed upon the accused but a legally enforceable right guaranteed by the State to its citizens.
The Court ultimately found no grounds to intervene in the challenged order and dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: Pattivada Balaji v The State of Andhra Pradesh