Justice P Velmurugan noted that the accused’s request to examine the witnesses was not without reason and that this would not cause any delay as further investigation had been ordered in this matter. The court therefore directed the Sessions Judge to complete the trial by giving an opportunity to both the parties and the accused to examine the 8 witnesses as requested.

“In view of the above, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties. If the prosecution is required to question additional witnesses based on further investigation, the trial should proceed accordingly. After the prosecution’s examination of witnesses is completed, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to examine the eight witnesses mentioned in the petition, namely (i) Thiru. Edappadi K. Palanisami, (ii) Ms. V.K.Sasikala Natarajan, (iii) Ms. Elavarasi, (iv) Mr. NVSudhakaran, (v) Mr. Shankar IAS, (vi) Mr. Murali Rambah, IPS Officer, (vii) Mr. . Sajeevan and (viii) Mr. Sunil, on the defense side,” the court ordered.

The accused (petitioners) had challenged the order of the Sessions Judge refusing their plea to examine the witnesses. The petitioners argued that they had a fundamental right to present evidence in their defense and that the trial court’s failure to appreciate this right and consider the importance of the witnesses in supporting the defense was highly arbitrary and violated Section 233 of the CrPC.

The petitioners argued that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, also guarantees the right to due process. It was argued that this provision ensured that the accused could effectively challenge the charges against him. Thus, it was contended that the Sessions Judge erred in denying them the right to examine important witnesses.

The state government, on the other hand, contended that the sessions judge had acted within the confines of the CrPC and in the interest of justice to ensure that the trial was conducted in a fair, efficient and timely manner. The State argued that the petitioners’ application did not meet the requirements of Section 233 of the CrPC and was intended to delay the proceedings without any material or substantial benefit to the defence.

The State argued that Section 233 of the CrPC does not confer an absolute right on the accused and does not require summoning of all the witnesses whom the accused wishes to examine. It has been argued that the trial court has the authority to deny the request for witnesses if it is determined that the requested evidence is irrelevant, unnecessary, or would unnecessarily delay the proceeding.

The court noted that in the present case, the accused had argued that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the entire matter and that the police had diverted the matter to potentially protect certain people. The court noted that the trial judge failed to uncover the true intentions and facts behind the crime in dismissing the petitioners’ petition.

The court noted that it was important that both the prosecution and the defense were given the opportunity to present their arguments, as refusal to do so would constitute a violation of legal principles. The court added that any process compromising the fundamental right, namely a reasonable possibility in this case, undermines the integrity of the trial and hinders the search for truth.

“Denying the prosecution and defense the opportunity to present their respective arguments would likely constitute a violation of legal principles. This violation must be examined carefully, as the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the justice system. The principle of a fair trial requires that both parties have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Any process that compromises this fundamental right undermines the integrity of the trial and hinders the search for truth. It is therefore essential that all proceedings are conducted in a manner that ensures fairness and due process for all parties involved.“, said the court.

Thus, noting the role that each witness requested to be examined by the accused had played in the entire case, the court held that the accused’s request was not vexatious and was inclined to allow it .

Advisor to the applicants: MI Romeo Roy Alfred for MK Vijayan