Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are accused in Sessions Case No.182 of 2013 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, challenged an order dated 16th August 2019 rejecting their application at Exhibit 74 to summon Dr. D.C. Patil or his representative as a defence witness. The case involves allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 507, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 109 read with 34 IPC. The first informant (PW6) is the daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1, wife of petitioner no.2, and daughter-in-law of petitioner no.3. She alleged cruelty, hurt, criminal intimidation, and rape by petitioner no.1, with petitioner no.3 aiding the rape. During her evidence, she deposed that on 21st October 2012, petitioner no.1 raped her in the presence of petitioner no.3, who increased the television volume to aid the act. The accused filed an application to summon Dr. D.C. Patil, who had allegedly examined the first informant, to adduce defence evidence. The trial court rejected the application, stating that the witness was not cited in the charge-sheet and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the accused has a right to lead defence evidence under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the trial court ought to have considered the application on its merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to issue summons to Dr. D.C. Patil or his representative and permit the accused to examine him. The High Court clarified that the trial court should proceed with the trial in accordance with law and not be influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Defence Evidence - Summoning of Witnesses - Section 233 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The accused sought to summon Dr. D.C. Patil or his representative to adduce evidence in defence. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the witness was not cited in the charge-sheet and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court held that the accused has a right to lead defence evidence and the trial court ought to have considered the application on merits rather than rejecting it summarily. The impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to issue summons to the witness and permit the accused to examine him. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Opportunity to Lead Defence - Section 233 CrPC - The High Court observed that the rejection of the application at the stage of defence evidence was premature and that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to present their defence. The court directed the trial court to issue summons to Dr. D.C. Patil or his representative and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the accused to summon a defence witness at the stage of defence evidence under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 16th August 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, is set aside. The trial court is directed to issue summons to Dr. D.C. Patil or his representative and permit the accused to examine him. The trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment.
Law Points
- Right to defence
- Summoning of witnesses
- Section 233 CrPC
- Fair trial
- Opportunity to adduce evidence
