The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that an accused retains the fundamental right to call defence witnesses even after the recording of their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, provided the trial remains open for defence evidence. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays cannot override the constitutional guarantee of a fair defence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, accused in a criminal proceeding, sought to summon four witnesses in his defence during the trial stage. The application was filed after the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but before the closure of defence evidence. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds of alleged delay and procedural irregularity.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in a criminal case
- The prosecution evidence was closed
- The petitioner’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded
- No formal order was passed by the trial court closing defence evidence
- On 18.11.2024, the petitioner filed an application seeking summoning of four defence witnesses
- The trial court dismissed the application on the same date, citing undue delay
- The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Procedural History
- Date of complaint filing: Not specified in judgment
- Date of prosecution evidence closure: Not specified, but confirmed as completed
- Date of Section 313 CrPC statement recording: Prior to 18.11.2024
- 18.11.2024: Petitioner filed application to summon four defence witnesses; application dismissed by trial court
- 08.04.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNS 2023 heard and decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court
- No order closing defence evidence was passed by the trial court at any stage prior to 18.11.2024
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the trial was still ongoing for defence evidence and that denial of the opportunity to call witnesses violated his right to a fair trial. The respondent did not contest the factual posture but relied on the trial court’s discretion to manage delays.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 and a direction to the trial court to permit the summoning of the four witnesses and to proceed with recording of defence evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused can be denied the opportunity to summon defence witnesses after the recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, when defence evidence has not been formally closed by the trial court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the right to call defence witnesses is a statutory and constitutional right under Article 21 and Section 315 of the CrPC, now carried forward under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He emphasized that no order had been passed closing defence evidence, and therefore the trial remained open. Denial of the application on grounds of delay, without examining the relevance or necessity of the witnesses, amounted to a denial of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a detailed written submission but relied on the trial court’s discretion to prevent undue prolongation of proceedings. No specific legal authority was cited to justify the denial of the application.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the case and found that the trial court had not passed any order closing defence evidence after recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC. The Court observed that the mere passage of time or the stage of proceedings does not extinguish the accused’s right to present a defence.
"The petitioner being an accused has got a valuable right to defend himself. Simply in the name of delay in trial the above-said right cannot be snatched."
The Court held that the trial court erred in treating the application as untimely without assessing the merits of the proposed witnesses or the necessity of their testimony. The Court emphasized that the right to call witnesses is not contingent upon the accused’s promptness but on the continued openness of the trial for defence evidence. The absence of a formal closure order meant the trial remained in the defence stage, and the accused was entitled to seek summoning of witnesses.
The Court further noted that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits such petitions against interlocutory orders that substantially affect the rights of the accused, and the impugned order clearly did so.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The order dated 18.11.2024 dismissing the application to summon four defence witnesses was set aside. The trial court was directed to afford the petitioner adequate opportunity to summon and examine the four witnesses named in the application and to record their evidence. The trial court was further directed to decide the case expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Defence Evidence Remains Open Until Formally Closed
- Practitioners must ensure that no application to summon defence witnesses is dismissed merely on grounds of delay if no formal closure order has been passed
- The burden lies on the trial court to explicitly close defence evidence before denying further applications
- Any denial without a reasoned order on relevance or prejudice violates fair trial norms
Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised Reasonably
- Trial courts cannot use procedural delays as a blanket justification to deny defence rights
- The court must evaluate the materiality of proposed witnesses, not just the timing of the application
- Denial without such evaluation invites successful writ petitions under Section 528 BNS 2023
Procedural Fairness Trumps Expediency
- The right to a fair trial under Article 21 and statutory provisions under BNS 2023 supersedes administrative convenience
- Delay alone is not a ground to curtail defence rights unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the prosecution
- Courts must record reasons for rejecting defence applications, especially when witnesses are named
