Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu has held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law.

What is the Background of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu Case?

• In this case, the appellants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Having been unsuccessful in securing bail from the High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
• During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was stated that the Trial Court recorded the examination in chief of 12 prosecution witnesses one after the other on different dates without recording their cross-examination.
• The Supreme Court came to know that the High Court had directed the Trial Court to submit a report within four months.
• The report records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate.
• The Supreme Court pointed out the discrepancy in this approach.
• Allowing the bail application, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to hold a de novo trial.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that before recording the examination in chief of the first prosecution witness, after finding that the appellants had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants. The order sheet enclosed with the report does not record that the appellants declined to accept the services of a legal aid lawyer.
• The Court also held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law. To strengthen this, the Court also referred to Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which outlines the examination order of witnesses.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 138 of IEA

About:

• Section 138 of the IEA deals with the order of examinations.
• It states that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
• The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

Examination in Chief:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-Examination:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.

Re-Examination:

• As per Section 137 of IEA, the examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
• The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if a new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

Section 419 of IPC

• This Section deals with the punishment for cheating by personation.
• It states that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420 of IPC

• This Section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.