Date of the Judgment: March 18, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 229
Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Can a trial court record the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses without ensuring the presence of a defense lawyer and without recording their cross-examination? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal case, emphasizing the importance of fair trial procedures. The Court found that the trial court had improperly recorded the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses without providing legal aid to the accused or allowing for cross-examination. This led the Supreme Court to order a de novo trial to ensure a fair hearing. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Background
The appellants, Ekene Godwin and another individual, were accused of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, related to cheating and impersonation, and also under Section 66, read with Sections 43(J) and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, concerning cybercrime. A charge sheet was filed, and the trial commenced. The appellants were in custody since January 8, 2023. The High Court had previously directed the trial court to complete the trial within four months. However, the trial court proceeded to record the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording their cross-examination and without providing legal aid to the accused.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 8, 2023 | Appellants taken into custody. |
| May 30, 2023 | Charge framed against the appellants. |
| June 27, 2023 | High Court directs completion of trial within four months. |
| July 25, 2023 to February 7, 2024 | Evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses recorded. |
| March 11, 2024 | Trial Court submits report to Supreme Court. |
| March 18, 2024 | Supreme Court orders de novo trial. |
| March 27, 2024 | Appellants to be produced before the Trial Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court had directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within four months. The Trial Court framed charges on May 30, 2023, and proceeded to record the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses between July 25, 2023, and February 7, 2024. The Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of these witnesses without ensuring the presence of a defense lawyer for the accused. The Trial Court did not record the cross-examination of the witnesses. The appellants had not engaged a lawyer, and the Trial Court did not provide legal aid. The High Court rejected the appellants’ application for regular bail, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:
- Section 242(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
This section deals with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases. The proviso to sub-section (3) states that the Magistrate may, by recording reasons, permit the cross-examination of a witness to be postponed until a particular witness or witnesses have been examined. The court noted that in the present case, no such order was passed by the Magistrate.
- Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
This section lays down the order of examination of witnesses, stating that witnesses shall first be examined-in-chief, then cross-examined, and then re-examined. The court noted that the trial court had not followed this normal rule.
Arguments
The arguments presented in the judgment were as follows:
- The appellants argued that the trial court had violated the established procedure by recording the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without allowing for cross-examination.
- The appellants also argued that the trial court should have provided them with legal aid since they did not have a lawyer.
- The respondent State did not make any specific arguments in the judgment.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | Irregular Trial Procedure |
|
| State of Tamil Nadu | No specific arguments mentioned |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:
- Whether the trial court erred in recording the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses without providing legal aid to the accused and without recording their cross-examination.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in recording the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses without providing legal aid to the accused and without recording their cross-examination. | Yes, the trial court erred. | The trial court violated the established procedure under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the principles of fair trial. The court also failed to provide legal aid to the accused. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 242(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The court noted that the trial court did not follow the procedure laid down in this section.
- Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court highlighted that the trial court did not follow the order of examination of witnesses as laid down in this section.
| Authority | Type | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|---|
| Section 242(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Legal Provision | The court noted that the trial court did not follow the procedure laid down in this section. |
| Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Legal Provision | The court highlighted that the trial court did not follow the order of examination of witnesses as laid down in this section. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s procedure of recording only the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses without ensuring the presence of a defense lawyer and without recording their cross-examination was contrary to law and the principles of fair trial. The court emphasized that the presence of the defense lawyer is necessary during the examination-in-chief to object to leading or irrelevant questions and that the normal rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that the trial court did not pass any order to postpone cross-examination as required under Section 242(3) of the CrPC.
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Irregular Trial Procedure (Recording of examination-in-chief without cross-examination) | The Court agreed that this was a violation of established procedure and principles of fair trial. |
| Failure to provide legal aid | The Court held that the trial court should have provided legal aid to the appellants before recording the evidence. |
The court directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to conduct a de novo trial by re-examining the prosecution witnesses. The court also directed the trial court to provide legal aid to the appellants and enlarge them on bail, subject to stringent terms and conditions, including the surrender of their passports.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair trial for the accused. The court emphasized the importance of following the established legal procedures for recording evidence, particularly the right to cross-examination and the right to legal representation. The court noted that the trial court’s actions could prejudice the accused, and therefore, a de novo trial was necessary to rectify the procedural lapses.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fair Trial | 40% |
| Procedural Compliance | 30% |
| Right to Legal Representation | 20% |
| Prevention of Prejudice | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The trial court had not followed the procedure laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires the cross-examination of witnesses after their examination-in-chief.
- The trial court had not provided legal aid to the appellants, who did not have a lawyer, before recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
- The court noted that the trial court’s actions could prejudice the accused, and therefore, a de novo trial was necessary to rectify the procedural lapses.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of following the established legal procedures for recording evidence, particularly the right to cross-examination and the right to legal representation. The court noted that the trial court’s actions could prejudice the accused, and therefore, a de novo trial was necessary to rectify the procedural lapses.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “When the examination-in-chief of a material prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required.”
- “The normal rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
- “Therefore, recording only the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording cross-examination is contrary to the law.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must ensure that the accused are provided with legal representation, especially when they do not have a lawyer.
- The examination-in-chief of witnesses should be followed by cross-examination, as per the procedure laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Failure to follow the established legal procedures can lead to a de novo trial to ensure a fair hearing.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The appellants shall be produced before the Trial Court on March 27, 2024, at 10:30 a.m.
- The Trial Court will appoint a legal aid Advocate to represent the appellants.
- The Trial Court will enlarge the appellants on bail on appropriate stringent terms and conditions, after hearing the Prosecutor on the terms and conditions of the bail.
- The conditions of bail shall include the surrender of the appellants’ passports before the Trial Court.
- The Trial Court will conduct a de novo trial by examining the Prosecution Witness Nos. 1 to 12.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the trial court must follow the established legal procedures for recording evidence, including the right to cross-examination and the right to legal representation. This judgment reinforces the principles of fair trial and the importance of adhering to procedural norms in criminal trials. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it highlights the importance of following the existing law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ekene Godwin vs. State of Tamil Nadu underscores the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials. The court’s order for a de novo trial serves as a reminder that trial courts must adhere to established legal procedures and ensure that the accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The judgment reinforces the importance of the right to legal representation and the right to cross-examine witnesses.