In a significant ruling clarifying the law regarding court witnesses, the Supreme Court has held that a “Court Witness” can only be cross-examined with the leave of the Court, and further, such a witness cannot be contradicted by referring to his or her prior statements made to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in K.P. Tamilmaran vs State, arising from a series of appeals challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 8 June 2022.
Background of the Case
The case relates to the brutal murder of a young inter-caste couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, in Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, in July 2003. Murugesan, a Dalit, and Kannagi, from the Vanniyar community, had married against the wishes of their families. Both were forcibly brought back to their village, tortured, and poisoned to death by members of Kannagi’s family and others.
Fifteen persons, including two police officers, were accused. The Trial Court convicted thirteen accused; two were acquitted. The High Court subsequently modified some convictions and sentences, notably reducing the punishment of Sub-Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran (A-14) from life imprisonment to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Appeals were filed by the convicted persons before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Among the issues considered by the Supreme Court was the treatment of PW-49, Chinnapillai (step-mother of the deceased Murugesan), who was brought into the trial midway under Section 311 CrPC. An argument was raised regarding whether she should have been examined as a prosecution witness or as a court witness, and the implications for cross-examination and contradiction based on her previous police statements.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court explained the wide powers vested in criminal courts under Section 311 CrPC, enabling courts to summon any witness at any stage of the trial, either suo moto or on application by the parties. The judgment elaborated that under Section 311 CrPC, if the Court finds the evidence of any person essential for a just decision, it must summon and examine such a person.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted:
“In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, and call such a person as a Court witness.”
Critically, the Court held that while parties may cross-examine a Court witness, such cross-examination requires the Court’s leave. Moreover, a Court witness cannot be contradicted using previous statements made to the police under Section 161 CrPC.
The Court explained:
“The proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC makes it very clear that only prosecution witnesses can be contradicted against their previous Section 161 CrPC statements. No such right exists in the case of Court witnesses.”
The Court referred to earlier authorities, including Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar [(1972) 1 SCC 748] and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2019) 16 SCC 547], to reinforce that contradiction using police statements is permissible only against prosecution witnesses and not against Court witnesses.
Further, the Court emphasized:
“The special powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act are not impaired or controlled by the provisions of Section 162 CrPC. Courts are not barred from putting questions which may contradict the witness with the previous statements made before the police.”
Citing Raghunandan v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 186], the judgment reaffirmed that the judge retains complete discretion under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to put any questions to any witness to elicit the truth, irrespective of prior police statements.
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the approach adopted by the Trial Court in examining PW-49 as a prosecution witness and rejected the contention that she should have been treated differently. It also dismissed the apprehension that cross-examination and contradiction would have different implications if she were a court witness.
Summarising the law, the Court held:
- A Court witness can only be cross-examined with the Court’s permission.
- The prior police statements (under Section 161 CrPC) of a Court witness cannot be used for contradiction.
- The judge retains wide discretion under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to seek the truth and protect the integrity of the trial process.
Thus, the Supreme Court clarified an important aspect of criminal procedure, reaffirming the special status and procedural safeguards applicable to Court witnesses.
