In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court underscored the critical importance of balanced legal proceedings by highlighting the necessity of recording both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses. The Court’s decision, rooted in the tenets of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, resonates with the fundamental principles of fair trial.
The Court’s stance emerged from a bail application hearing presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, involving appellants accused of multiple offenses under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The crux of the matter lay in the Trial Court’s procedural irregularity: the recording of examination-in-chief without parallel documentation of cross-examination.
This procedural lapse prompted the Court to delve deeper, leading to the revelation that legal representation was absent during the prosecution witnesses’ examination. Such a deficiency not only compromised the appellants’ rights but also unveiled systemic inadequacies in ensuring legal recourse.
Emphasizing the pivotal role of legal representation, the Court highlighted the appellants’ entitlement to advocate intervention, particularly during witness examination. The absence of legal aid during this crucial phase not only infringed upon the appellants’ rights but also jeopardized the integrity of the trial process.
Moreover, the Court scrutinized the Trial Court’s rationale, attributing the procedural oversight to time constraints imposed by the High Court. However, it underscored that adherence to procedural norms should supersede expedited timelines, urging the Trial Court to prioritize legal due process over temporal exigencies.
Consequently, the Court mandated a retrial, coupled with the provision of legal aid to the appellants to rectify the procedural aberration. Additionally, cognizant of the appellants’ prolonged detention, the Court exercised judicial discretion by granting bail, albeit subject to stringent conditions, including the surrender of passports.
In essence, the Court’s verdict underscores the imperative of judicial oversight in upholding the sanctity of legal proceedings. By championing procedural rectitude and equitable representation, the judiciary reaffirms its commitment to fostering a fair and just legal landscape.
