Not Allowing Relevant Questions To Be Put To Eye-Witness Causes Serious Prejudice To Defence Of Accused: SC
The principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India that:
“Not allowing relevant questions to be put to an eye-witness causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused.”
This principle is rooted in natural justice, the right to fair trial, and the constitutional guarantee of a reasonable opportunity for defence, and has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.
⚖️ Legal Principle: Right to Cross-Examination is Fundamental
Cross-examination is the most effective tool for testing the truthfulness, reliability, and credibility of a witness. Under Section 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the accused or their counsel has the right to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses.
If relevant questions—particularly those that challenge the witness’s version or expose inconsistencies—are denied by the court, it:
Undermines the accused's right to defend themselves.
Violates principles of natural justice.
Causes serious prejudice, possibly resulting in miscarriage of justice.
📜 Relevant Case Laws Supporting This Principle
1. Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (2009)
The Supreme Court held that denial of proper opportunity to cross-examine a witness renders the testimony unreliable. If cross-examination is curtailed without justification, the evidence cannot be treated as credible.
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
The SC emphasized that the right to cross-examination is a core part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Denial of this right, especially in a criminal trial, vitiates the trial process.
3. State of Kerala v. Babu (1993)
The Court observed that when relevant questions which could test the veracity of an eyewitness are disallowed by the trial court, it prejudices the defence and may lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
4. Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (2015)
In this case, the SC reiterated that disallowing material questions during cross-examination undermines the defence’s strategy and the entire edifice of the prosecution’s version may collapse when tested through proper cross-examination.
5. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976)
This case clearly distinguished between hostile and truthful witnesses and emphasized that the opportunity to test such categories of witnesses through cross-examination is a fundamental procedural safeguard.
🧾 Practical Illustration
Let’s say in a murder trial, an eye-witness claims to have seen the accused at the crime scene. During cross-examination, the defence wants to ask:
The lighting condition at the time.
The distance from which the witness saw the accused.
Whether the witness knew the accused earlier.
If there was any obstruction in the view.
Whether the witness gave a consistent version in earlier statements.
If the trial court refuses these questions stating “irrelevance” or “time-wasting,” it would cripple the defence’s right to challenge the prosecution narrative.
In such a case, the Supreme Court has clarified that preventing such cross-examination renders the testimony legally weak and causes real prejudice, leading to violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
🏛️ Constitutional Foundation
Article 21: Guarantees fair trial as part of the right to life and liberty.
Section 311 CrPC: Gives court the discretion to recall witnesses, ensuring fair play.
Section 165 Evidence Act: Allows judges to ask any question to discover the truth—but it cannot override the defence's right to cross-examine.
📝 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has firmly established that not allowing relevant questions during cross-examination of eye-witnesses undermines the constitutional and legal right of the accused to a fair trial. It can result in serious prejudice and render the entire prosecution evidence suspect. Courts are duty-bound to ensure that the defence has full and fair opportunity to test every witness’s credibility to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments