Calcutta HC Acquits Man Convicted 34 Years Ago By Trial Court For Allegedly Abetting Wife's Murder Trial Court Can Regulate Sequence In Which Witnesses Are To Be Examined: MP HC
🔹 1. Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted 34 Years Ago for Allegedly Abetting Wife's Murder
✦ Background:
In this case, a man was convicted by a trial court in 1990 for allegedly abetting the suicide/murder of his wife. After 34 years, the Calcutta High Court reviewed the evidence and acquitted the man, observing serious procedural and evidentiary shortcomings in the original trial.
✦ Key Legal Principles:
a) Burden of Proof on Prosecution
In criminal cases, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
If there is any reasonable doubt or lack of sufficient evidence, benefit must go to the accused.
b) Presumption of Innocence
A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
c) No Conviction Based on Conjecture
Courts cannot convict based on suspicion or presumption. Guilt must be established through concrete evidence, not just circumstantial inferences.
✦ Observations by the Calcutta High Court:
There was no direct evidence proving the man's involvement in the death of his wife.
The circumstantial evidence was weak and did not conclusively prove abetment or murder.
The trial court had not appreciated evidence properly and had relied on assumptions.
Delay in appeal was considered but not allowed to defeat the cause of justice.
✦ Relevant Case Laws:
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
Laid down the five golden principles (panchsheel) for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
If one link is missing, the chain breaks and the accused must be acquitted.
2. Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)
Reiterated that 1000 guilty may escape, but one innocent should not be punished.
Presumption of innocence is a crucial right.
3. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (1952)
Held that circumstantial evidence must fully and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding every possible hypothesis of innocence.
✦ Conclusion:
The Calcutta High Court upheld the principle of justice over delay. Despite the passage of 34 years, the conviction was reversed because it did not meet the standards of criminal justice. This judgment reaffirms that justice delayed must not mean justice denied, and no innocent should be allowed to suffer due to erroneous convictions.
🔹 2. Trial Court Can Regulate Sequence in Which Witnesses Are to Be Examined – Madhya Pradesh High Court
✦ Legal Issue:
Can a trial court determine or regulate the sequence in which witnesses are examined during a criminal trial?
✦ Principle:
Yes. The trial court has the discretion to regulate the order of witness examination in the interest of justice, provided it does not violate the accused's right to a fair trial.
✦ Legal Provisions:
▸ Section 311 CrPC – Power to Summon Material Witness
Allows the court to summon any witness at any stage of inquiry/trial if their evidence is essential.
▸ Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
States that the order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and discretion of the court.
✦ Observations by the Madhya Pradesh High Court:
The trial court is not bound to examine witnesses strictly in the order proposed by either the prosecution or defence.
Flexibility is essential to ensure that the trial is conducted smoothly and efficiently.
However, the court must exercise this discretion judicially and not arbitrarily.
✦ Relevant Case Laws:
1. Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra (1968)
Supreme Court held that Section 311 confers wide discretion on the trial court to call or recall witnesses at any stage.
This discretion must be exercised judiciously and not to cause prejudice.
2. Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell (1999)
Supreme Court held that even after evidence is closed, the court can recall witnesses in the interest of justice.
3. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981)
Held that trial courts must control proceedings, including regulating the sequence of witness examination, to ensure truth is discovered.
✦ Conclusion:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court rightly held that trial courts can regulate the sequence of witness examination, as long as the principles of natural justice are preserved. The aim is not to create procedural hurdles but to advance the cause of justice.
✅ Combined Summary:
The Calcutta HC acquitted a man 34 years after his conviction for abetting his wife’s murder, ruling that no conviction can stand without solid, independent evidence.
The Madhya Pradesh HC affirmed the trial court’s authority to regulate the order of witness examination, provided it is done fairly and without prejudice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments