Right To Lead Evidence Pivotal To Fair Trial, Court Should Not Be Hyper Technical In Granting Opportunity: Delhi...
🔹 Principle Explained
A fundamental aspect of a fair trial is the accused’s or party’s right to lead evidence to prove their case. Courts have emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override the core principle of justice, i.e., the right to a fair opportunity to present evidence.
Right to lead evidence includes:
Calling witnesses
Producing documents or material evidence
Cross-examining adverse witnesses
Hyper-technical approach (rejecting evidence due to minor procedural lapses) violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and the principle of natural justice.
In essence, substance over form must prevail in judicial proceedings.
🔹 Constitutional & Legal Basis
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – Right to a fair trial includes the right to defend oneself and produce evidence.
Section 161, 162, 313 CrPC – Provides for recording statements and cross-examination; courts must ensure accused can fully exercise these rights.
Principle of Natural Justice – “Audi alteram partem” (hear the other side) is violated if evidence is not allowed.
🔹 Landmark Case Laws
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
SC emphasized that denial of opportunity to lead evidence is fatal to a trial.
Courts should lean in favor of allowing parties to present material evidence unless there is a genuine abuse of process.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 16
Held that technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat substantive justice.
The Court reiterated that evidence must be admitted if it is relevant and material.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 3 SCC 401
The Court held that courts must ensure parties have a fair opportunity to lead evidence even if procedural compliance is imperfect.
Delhi HC – Recent Observation (2023)
The Delhi High Court observed: “Right to lead evidence is pivotal for a fair trial. Courts should not adopt a hyper-technical approach in denying opportunity to parties to produce relevant evidence.”
Minor lapses in procedure should not deprive a party of the right to prove its case.
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655
SC held that denial of opportunity to defend oneself effectively violates Article 21.
Courts should adopt a liberal approach in admitting evidence, ensuring justice is done.
🔹 Key Takeaways
Fair trial = Opportunity to lead evidence. Without it, trial is fundamentally flawed.
Substance over form: Minor procedural lapses should not override the right to present evidence.
Judicial approach: Courts should facilitate rather than frustrate the exercise of evidentiary rights.
Natural justice: Denial of the right to produce evidence is a violation of “audi alteram partem.”
Balance: While courts must prevent abuse, they must prioritize justice over hyper-technicality.
✅ In short: The judiciary recognizes that the right to lead evidence is essential to a fair trial. Courts should not take an overly technical approach that deprives parties of this right, as doing so undermines justice, natural justice, and constitutional guarantees under Article 21.
RELATED Blog
0 comments