The recent Judgment of Himanchal Pradesh High Court in Kapil Dev Vs. State of HP affirmed that Right of an accused to present his defense cannot be taken away .The high court observed that the right to defend one is an important part of fair trail, guaranted under ARTICLE 21 of the constitution of India. In this case, the trail court had closed the denied accused to present his defense witnesses on the ground of delay. The accused approached the high court challenging that order passed by trail court. The court held that procedural delays cannot override the fundamental right of an accused to prove his innocence. It emphasized that a criminal trail’s objective is discovery of truth, not merely to conclude proceedings quickly. The trail court’s rejection was based on the accused having previously stated during an examination under Section 313 of the CrPC that he did not intend to present any evidence.
Justice Virender Singh in his judgment stated that such a prior declaration “does not eliminate the legal right to establish one’s innocence”.” Furthermore, the High Court found that the trial court had erred by “incorrectly evaluating the substance of the proposed defence” at a preliminary stage, which is not the proper time for such an assessment. Justice Singh specifically rejected the lower court’s stance that the right to defence “can be snatched away” on such grounds, emphasizing that negligence alone is not sufficient to deny an accused the opportunity to prove their case. The court confirmed that this right cannot be permanently nullified merely because of a change of mind by the accused.
This decision does not mean the accused has infinite opportunity to lead defence evidence at any stage whatsoever. The Section 311 power remains discretionary, the trail court must be satisfied that the evidence is necessary for just decision. The judgment is specific to the facts that the trial was ongoing, and the application had not yet been finally rejected on merits of guilt or innocence. If a trail is concluded or final arguments over, the dynamics will differ. The accused must still substantiate the defence and the evidentiary burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling serves as an important for all subordinate courts that procedural technicalities cannot affect the substantive right of an accused to fair defence which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Earlier accused refused to lead the defence, the High Court has “reinforced the principle that the pursuit of justice must prioritize establishing innocence over strict adherence to rigid timelines”. This ensures that the trail process remains fundamentally fair. The High Court granted the petition, allowing the accused to call witnesses and submit the evidence. As a condition for the allowance, which rectifies earlier procedural instance, the accused was ordered to pay costs. The trail courts should note this as reaffirmation while dealing with late defence evidence application under 311 CrPC.
Author
Adv. Pallavi Sharma, Delhi based Advocate, who is a legal practitioner and researcher with a growing interest in cyber law, IPR, constitutional law, and women’s and child rights. She recently started to contribute through analytical writing and awareness initiatives on contemporary legal issues.