Skip to main content

Courts role in recalling of witness and treatment towards litigants

Madras High Court has recently directed the Trial Courts to treat victims and witnesses as Court’s Guests. Justice Dr.P.Devadass was considering applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Accused persons in a corruption Case, challenging the Order of Special Judge by which he dismissed their Petitions to re-call the witnesses for cross examination. The Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, power has been given to the Court to recall a witness, who has been already examined or to summon a fresh witness. It is intended to bring forth relevant evidence to the notice of the Court to enable it to render a correct finding. When it is essential to recall, the Court is bound to recall it. Need of balance Approach: The Court has observed that too much insistence on the right of the accused, forgetting the plight of the victim is not a correct approach. “On the one hand there is right of defence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and statutorily under Section 303 Cr.P.C. On the other hand the duty of the State to prosecute the offenders. None can be allowed to enjoy at the cost of others. At every stage of a criminal case it must be kept in mind. And balance has to struck to advance of justice and not miscarriage of justice.”  Treat Victims and Witnesses are Guests of Courts: The Court has observed that Court cannot forget victims of crime, the duty of the State and the interest of the State to prosecute the offenders. The victims have suffered already at the hands of the accused. Their agony prolongs during the trial also. Harassing of witnesses under the pretext of cross examination has become order of the day. In certain circumstances, during the trial, practically victims suffer more than the accused. The Court has directed to the Trial Courts that, when the victims/witnesses attend the Court they must be treated as guest, as they have come to assist the Court to render correct finding on a disputed facts. “Making the witnesses to wait till the close of the day and asking them to come on some other day for their examination has become a routine ordeal in the trial Courts. Sometimes, the accused employ some tricks to dilute or efface the evidence already recorded, either by bargaining or browbeating the witnesses. In one way or other the witnesses are being gained over. Major gain is to the accused. Net result is failure of justice and collapsing of the trial”, Justice Devadass added.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/victims-witnesses-guests-court-madras-hc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a