Legal Provisions of Section 243 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Evidence for defence:
After framing of the charge an accused has to be asked to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence. If the accused puts in any written statement the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Under sub-section (2) the accused has a right to apply for process for compelling the attendance of witnesses either for examination as a defence witness or for cross- examination provided he does not in the guise of examining of a prosecution witness as a defence witness, intend to or actually cross-examine such prosecution witness as was offered for cross-examination to him and whom he had failed to cross-examine.
The Court cannot refuse to summon any person as a defence witness unless it records a finding that the application for summoning the witnesses had been made merely for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
Image Source : luna.edu
In Dharamrajan v. State of Kerala, the accused (petitioner) was charged with offence under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376 and 392 IPC read with Sections 109 and 34 IPC. He submitted a list of 45 witnesses for defence. The Court allowed him to examine 12 witnesses and refused to permit him to examine remaining witnesses by giving cogent reasons.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The accused (petitioner) was absconding after alleged occurrence and the trial Court had to split the case against him. Held that as 45 witnesses for defence submitted by petitioner was intended only to delay the proceedings, therefore, order refusing to permit the accused to examine remaining witnesses was not improper.
In a case, i.e., Tripurari Mohan Prasad v. Union of India, the petitioner wanted to examine the officers of C.B.I, and some others as reference witnesses. It had not been made clear as to why they should be examined and how petitioner would be prejudiced if they were not examined as defence witnesses. The petitioner had filed similar lists to almost all cases in which he was accused. In these circumstances, refusal of prayer of the petitioner was held to be proper and justified.
The Court has discretion to require deposit of reasonable expenses from the accused for summoning of a witness at his instance. But where the accused does not have the capacity or means to pay the requisite expenses, the Court may exempt him from depositing the amount for such expenses.
Where a Magistrate directed the accused to deposit Rs. 3000/- towards expenses for summoning the defence witness without giving any reason, the order was set aside by the High Court and the Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Arivazhagan v. State, the accused was being tried for an offence under Section 109, IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused submitted a list of 267 witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses.
The trial Court rejected the demand of examining all the 267 witnesses and directed the accused to cut-short the list. The accused (appellant) declined to reduce the number of his witnesses and appealed before the High Court which upheld the direction of the trial Court after scrutinising the list.
The appellant thereupon moved in appeal before the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that pruning the list of witnesses by the trial Court as well as the High Court was within the permissible limits of law.
The Court further observed that the court will be well within its powers in disallowing even the whole of the list if it is convinced that it is intended to keep the proceedings delayed. The Apex Court further held that after the evidence of the witnesses who were permitted by the High Court to be examined, the accused (appellant) had the opportunity to convince the Court that examination of some more witnesses was necessary in the interest of justice and the Court could permit recording of their evidence if it was satisfied that the interest of justice really demanded so.