Case Law Details
Chandrasekhar Patel vs Suresh & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Not Allowing Relevant Questions To Be Put To Eye-Witness Causes Serious Prejudice To Defence Of Accused: SC
While ruling on a very significant aspect of law pertaining to the type of questions to be put to eye witness, we see that the Apex Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Chandrasekhar Patel vs Suresh & Ors in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1163/2018 With Criminal Appeal No. 1164/2018 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023 INSC 1083 that was pronounced recently on November 30, 2023 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that not allowing the relevant questions to be put to the eye-witness being the independent witness causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. We see here that the Apex Court observed so while it was deciding in a criminal appeal out of a murder case of 1996. It must be noted that the two Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal did not mince any words to observe unequivocally that, “According to us, not allowing the relevant questions to be put to the eye witness, who is stated to be the independent witness, cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. It is too late in the day now to remand the case to the Trial Court for further cross-examination of the said witness because a period of 27 years has elapsed from the date of the incident.”
It merits mentioning that the Apex Court also observed that though the independent witnesses were present, even an attempt was not made to record their statements. The Apex Court thus found no difficulty to conclude ostensibly holding that, “…we have no manner of doubt that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, is certainly a plausible conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution. This is our view after carefully scrutinizing the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses.” So it was but inevitable that the Apex Court dismissed the appeals and refused to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The incident, which is the subject matter of these Appeals, is of 6th March, 1996. There were five accused, who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”). One of them was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The offence alleged was of committing the murder of one Siddhnath Patel.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
