STATE OF HLMACHAL PRADESH versus SURINDER MOHAN AND ORS.

STATE OF HLMACHAL PRADESH versus SURINDER MOHAN AND ORS.

Failure to comply with Section 306(4)(a) CrPC by not recording the approver’s statement in the presence of the accused or allowing cross-examination at the committal stage does not, by itself, vitiate the committal or the trial. Such an objection, if not raised at the earliest, is barred by Section 465 CrPC unless...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Himachal Pradesh; Respondents: Surinder Mohan and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Pardon of Accomplices, Right to Cross Examination, Effect of Procedural Irregularity, Commitment Proceedings, Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Pardon of Accomplices Right to Cross Examination Effect of Procedural Irregularity Commitment Proceedings Trial Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Himachal Pradesh

Appellant

Surinder Mohan and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-examination of the approver at committal stage as required by Section 306(4)(a) CrPC vitiates the trial
  2. 2 Whether the right to cross-examine witnesses arises at the stage of investigation or inquiry
  3. 3 Whether Section 306(4)(a) CrPC is mandatory so as to vitiate the trial for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to comply with Section 306(4)(a) CrPC by not recording the approver’s statement in the presence of the accused or allowing cross-examination at the committal stage does not, by itself, vitiate the committal or the trial. Such an objection, if not raised at the earliest, is barred by Section 465 CrPC unless failure of justice is shown. Accused had opportunity to cross-examine the approver during trial and suffered no prejudice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal filed in the High Court is remitted to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.