To further justice and advance the truth, the Court observed that an IO may testify as a witness for the accused in a cross-case without violating Section 243 of the CrPC (evidence for defence).

A man who was arraigned as an accused in a similar case filed a plea asking the Madhya Pradesh High Court to enable the appearance of an Investigating Officer (IO) of the police as a witness in a cross-case.

The Criminal Procedure Code’s (CrPC)’s Section 243 (evidence for defence) does not prohibit an IO from testifying on behalf of the accused in a cross-case, according to Justice Anand Pathak.

“The scheme of Section 243 of CrPC indicates that the defence or accused can produce their evidence, and it nowhere bars the investigating officer of cross-case to appear on behalf of the accused in the case in which he is the complainant so that truth can come to the fore as it would help the cause of justice to the extent where his act is vicarious or individual or the extent of role would be determined,” the judge stated.

As a result, the Court granted the accused’s (petitioner’s) application under Section 311 of the CrPC, which grants the authority to call a material witness or question a person in person.

For context, the petitioner was one of the people charged with assaulting and physically assaulting a man in 2018. When the guy and three others went to a river to take a bath, the applicant was accused of verbally and physically abusing the man while brandishing sharp objects.

A complaint was filed against the petitioner for these purported acts, claiming that the petitioner had committed offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (hurt), 294 (obscene acts), and 147–149 (unlawful assembly), in addition to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In the meantime, the petitioner filed a cross-case, alleging that the complainant in the previous case had violated Sections 34 (common intention), 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (injury), and 324 (grievous harm) of the IPC.

Next, the petitioner attempted to call the police officer looking into the case against him as a witness in the cross-examination.

The petitioner appealed the trial court’s ruling to the High Court after the trial court denied this application.

In order to summon an inspector and two sub-inspectors as witnesses in the cross-case, the petitioner’s attorney notified the High Court.

The state’s attorney contested the plea, claiming that bringing the investigating officer as a witness would be pointless as the petitioner had already testified as a defence witness in the trial court.

However according to the High Court, the petitioner’s ability to call the police officers as witnesses in his cross-case would only serve the interests of justice.

“The petitioner hopes to provide a witness to support his position in the case so that he might obtain some factual advantages in his trial as an accused party by demonstrating the precise nature of his role, motivation, or substance of the allegations. Justice would ultimately benefit from the process since it could lead to the discovery of the truth and the precise nature of the event. The prosecution would not be negatively impacted because the accused must have addressed that matter when testifying as a defence witness, the court noted.

The petitioner’s application would not cause any prejudice, the court continued.

Therefore, in this court’s considered opinion, the trial court’s contested order is hereby annulled in order to avert a miscarriage of justice and in light of justice’s ultimate aim. The petitioner’s preferred petition was accepted, the court decided.

The trial court was then ordered by the court to call the pertinent witnesses that the petitioner had requested in his motion.

Adv. Khanak Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.