Chapter XIX
Section 243 CrPC: Evidence for defence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 269 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing; Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under Sub-Section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 243(2)
This crucial sub-section grants the accused the right to apply to the Magistrate for summoning defence witnesses or demanding the production of documents. The Magistrate is obligated to issue such processes unless the application is deemed vexatious, intended for delay, or meant to defeat justice, with recorded reasons for any refusal.
Landmark Judgements
Nityanand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2000):
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to produce defence evidence is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. It held that an application under Section 243(2) CrPC cannot be mechanically rejected; the Magistrate must record concrete reasons if the application is refused on grounds of vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice.
H.B. Chudasama v. State of Gujarat (1999):
The Gujarat High Court reiterated that the accused has a legitimate right to summon defence witnesses, and the Magistrate’s power to refuse such a request is limited to the specific grounds enumerated in the proviso to Section 243(2) CrPC. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring a robust opportunity for the accused to present their defence.