Case Title: Atma Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court found that the Hon’ble High Court’s decision ordering a new trial in a murder case did not invalidate the trial simply because the accused was not present while prosecution witnesses testified, unless the accused suffered significant bias. The Apex Court bench was looking into the said challenge to a decision by the High Court ordering a new trial to legally record statements from witnesses whose testimony had already been recorded in the first round without ensuring the presence of the accused in court.
The learned attorney for the accused stated that it is a valuable right for an accused person to observe prosecution witnesses testify in court and violating this right would be against the rule of law. The court agreeing with this argument and noting that the right was violated in this particular instance since it is valuable, still went on to analyse the issues related to "What is material to consider is the effect of such infringement? Would it vitiate the trial or such an infringement is a curable one?"
The court noted that, with the exception of those specified in Section 461, the main idea of Chapter XXXV of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with "Irregular Proceedings," is that any violation or irregularity would not vitiate the proceedings unless it caused the accused significant harm. Observing the powers of the appellate court stipulated in the code, the bench stated that if the power could be exercised to the extent of ordering a full retrial, then the High Court had every right to order the de novo examination of twelve witnesses along with additional directives in the current case. Therefore, the High Court did not violate any laws or commit a jurisdictional mistake.
The bench while upholding the High Court's ruling and granting the Trial Court permission to move on with a new trial stated that it is unquestionably in the best interests of society to punish the guilty, yet at the same time, the formalities necessary to assure a fair trial must be followed. If there was an error that would not otherwise invalidate the trial, every effort should be made to correct the same in order to protect both the interests of the accused and the public at large. The same witnesses were instructed to undergo a de novo examination, which would guarantee that the prosecution's interests are served while also giving the accused the opportunity and right to observe the witnesses testifying against them, and properly advise their attorneys so that the witnesses can be successfully cross-examined safeguarding accused's interests as well throughout the procedure. On the other hand, if the Court were to accept the argument that the procedures were tainted and that the High Court was unable to compel a de novo investigation of the relevant witnesses, a serious injustice would have occurred and would have prevented the evidence against the accused from getting recorded. It would have been impossible to successfully prosecute the person accused of four killings.
The Apex court, therefore, did not find a ground to challenge the High Court's decision in this case or its directives. The court therefore rejected the present appeals and upheld the High Court's position and directed the Trial Court accordingly so that it can reach its logical conclusion on the current matter.