Right to Fair Trial | Recall of Witnesses for Cross-Examination Cannot Be Denied on Technical Grounds : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the opportunity to recall and cross-examine witnesses, even when procedural conditions like cost payments remain unfulfilled. This judgment clarifies that technical defaults cannot override substantive justice in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Indian Penal Code.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Saranraj, was arrayed as the second accused in Crime No. 263 of 2017 registered by Perambalur Police Station. The charges included offences under Sections 294(b), 417, 420, 506(i), 306, and 109 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial was pending before the Special Court for Cases Under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, Perambalur, in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2018.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 2017: FIR registered against the petitioner and co-accused.
• 2018: Trial commenced before the Special Court.
• 2025: Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.150 of 2025 seeking recall of witnesses PW.1 to PW.8, PW.13, and PW.14 for cross-examination.
• 24.11.2025: The trial court allowed the application but imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 5,000 per witness) as costs by 05.12.2025.
• Post-05.12.2025: The petitioner failed to deposit the costs, leading to the automatic dismissal of the application.

Relief Sought

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking to set aside the trial court’s order. The petitioner argued that the inability to pay the costs was due to financial hardship and that denying the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses would result in irreparable prejudice to the defense.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the denial of an opportunity to recall and cross-examine witnesses, solely on the ground of non-payment of costs, violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the imposition of costs as a precondition for recalling witnesses was justified, particularly in cases involving indigent accused.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel contended:

• The petitioner, hailing from a poor background, could not deposit the costs of Rs. 40,000 within the stipulated time.
• The petitioner had since arranged the funds and was prepared to deposit them.
• Denying the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses would violate the principles of natural justice and result in grave prejudice to the defense.
• The right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial, as established in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

For the Respondent

The learned Government Advocate argued:

• The trial court had lawfully imposed the condition of costs while allowing the recall application.
• The petitioner’s failure to comply with the condition led to the automatic dismissal of the application.
• The case was posted for final arguments, and recalling witnesses at this stage would delay the proceedings.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice, particularly in criminal trials where the stakes are high. The judgment emphasized the following principles:

1. Right to Fair Trial as a Constitutional Mandate: The Court reiterated that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 includes the right to adequate opportunity to defend oneself, which encompasses the right to cross-examine witnesses. This principle was derived from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.

2. Substantive Justice Over Technicalities: The Court observed that while procedural compliance is important, it cannot override the substantive right to a fair trial. The judgment noted:

"Though there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner, denying an opportunity to recall and cross-examine the witnesses would amount to denial of a fair opportunity to the defence."

1. Financial Hardship as a Valid Consideration: The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s financial hardship as a mitigating factor, particularly in cases where the accused is indigent. This aligns with the access to justice principles enshrined in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held that poverty should not be a barrier to justice.

2. Conditional Orders and Their Enforcement: The Court scrutinized the trial court’s imposition of costs as a precondition for recalling witnesses. While the trial court had the discretion to impose conditions, the High Court held that such conditions must not defeat the very purpose of the application. The judgment implied that costs should not be used as a tool to deny substantive rights.

3. Stage of Proceedings: The Court noted that the case was posted for final arguments, but it held that the right to cross-examine witnesses could not be denied merely because the trial was at an advanced stage. The judgment emphasized that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

The Verdict

The Madras High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner must deposit Rs. 40,000 within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
• Upon deposit, the trial court must fix a date for the appearance of the witnesses (PW.1 to PW.8, PW.13, and PW.14) for cross-examination.
• The petitioner must cross-examine the witnesses on the same day of their appearance.
• No further opportunity will be granted if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the witnesses on the scheduled date.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Fair Trial Rights Trump Procedural Defaults

This judgment reinforces that procedural lapses, such as non-payment of costs, cannot justify the denial of substantive rights like cross-examination. Practitioners should:

• Argue that technical defaults should not override constitutional guarantees under Article 21.
• Cite this judgment to challenge conditional orders that impose financial burdens on indigent accused.
• Emphasize that delay in proceedings is not a valid ground to deny defense rights.

Financial Hardship as a Mitigating Factor

Courts are increasingly recognizing financial hardship as a valid reason for non-compliance with procedural conditions. Practitioners can:

• Highlight the indigent status of the accused to seek relaxation of stringent conditions.
• Argue that costs should not be used as a barrier to justice, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.
• Request alternative arrangements, such as payment in installments, where immediate compliance is not feasible.

Strategic Use of Recall Applications

This judgment provides a roadmap for recalling witnesses even at advanced stages of trial. Practitioners should:

• File recall applications with affidavits explaining delays or non-compliance.
• Offer undertakings to cross-examine witnesses immediately upon their appearance.
• Seek costs waivers or reductions where financial hardship is established.

The judgment underscores that justice must remain the paramount consideration, even in the face of procedural hurdles.