The High Court emphasized the necessity of a fair trial over procedural technicalities, reminding the judicial system that "justice hurried is justice buried."
In a landmark ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the order of a trial court which had rejected an application to call defence witnesses, citing technical grounds such as delay and the admissibility of expert reports under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The judgment, delivered by Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, is poised to have significant implications for the administration of justice, particularly in cases requiring the examination of expert witnesses.
The case, titled Avinash Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, involved the rejection of an application by the trial court to summon defence witnesses and expert testimony in a POCSO Act case. The trial court had dismissed the application, arguing that the report of a forensic expert was admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. without the need for formal proof, and had also cited the age of the case as a reason for expediting the proceedings.
Justice Singh, however, underscored the importance of affording a proper opportunity to all parties involved in the trial. He highlighted that while the principle "justice delayed is justice denied" is crucial, it must be balanced with the understanding that "justice hurried is justice buried." The court stressed that procedural expedience should not come at the cost of a fair trial.
The judgment draws upon precedents set by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, which have consistently advocated for the active role of judges in the trial process to ensure the truth is uncovered. The court reiterated that judges are not mere spectators but must actively engage in proceedings to prevent erroneous or incomplete evidence from forming the basis of criminal justice decisions.
Furthermore, the judgment referenced several other cases, such as Rahul v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, to emphasize the judiciary's duty to ensure fairness and accuracy in trials. These cases highlighted the necessity for the court to scrutinize expert reports and the evidence collection process thoroughly.
The High Court's decision mandates the trial court to summon the expert witness and other requested witnesses, allowing for their statements to be recorded as per legal protocols. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of a fair trial and ensuring justice is served not only swiftly but correctly.
The case has been remanded to the trial court with instructions to proceed in accordance with the principles outlined by the High Court, marking a significant victory for the defence in securing a comprehensive examination of the evidence.
Bottom Line:
Application for calling defence witnesses and examination of expert witnesses cannot be rejected on technical grounds like delay or admissibility under Section 293 of Cr.P.C.; justice must not be hurried, as it may lead to denial of proper opportunity to the parties involved.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 91, 233, 256, 293, 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Avinash Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854136
