Non Examination of the Lead Witness who gave information about crime would be fatal to the Prosecution’s case

The Supreme Court held that in Gaurav Maini Vs The State of Haryana case the non-examination of the lead witness who gave information about the crime would be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court said that the trial courts must be vigilant to call upon such witnesses for examination whose deposition is essential to arrive at a right conclusion.

“As a matter of fact, the trial Court should have remained vigilant and it was absolutely essential for the Court to have exercised powers under Section 311 CrPC so as to summon and examine Shamlal Garg in evidence because his evidence was essential for a just decision of the case. Section 165 of the Evidence Act permits the Judge to ask any question as he pleases in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant or may order production of any document or thing.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

Court also held that the trial court should not be a mute spectator but shall play an active role in the trial to extract relevant materials necessary for deciding a case, the Judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that:

“A conjoint reading of Section 311 CrPC(Section 348 of BNSS 2023) and Section 165 (Section168 of BSA 2023) of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial Court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so.”