While granting acquittal in a murder case, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that as per the power conferred under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Trial Court cannot put a leading question as to the direct commission of the alleged offence by the accused person, which may prompt the witness to say affirmatively.

The appellant approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction.

The Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held, “Although a Judge may legally ask leading questions to the witness under Section 165, such power must be exercised only for clarification and to obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Judge cannot suggest answers, introduce material facts not already spoken to by the witness, or supply essential ingredients of the offence-such as assault made by the accused if the witness herself has not deposed to them. Nor can the Judge neutralize contradictions brought out in cross-examination or repair weaknesses in the prosecution case.”

“The trial Court power conferred under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot put leading question as to the directly commission of alleged offence by the accused person which may prompt witness to say affirmatively”, it added.

Advocate Somnath Verma represented the Appellant while Panel Lawyer Sonia Kuldeep represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2011 when Sarpanch lodged an intimation before the Police Station alleging that a quarrel took place between deceased Umrao Singh and Shivnadh and his son Prataap Singh, and during the course of the altercation, they assaulted the deceased with bamboo sticks on his neck and chest, as a result of which Umraj Gond died. An FIR was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC against the appellant Prataap Singh and co-accused ie., the father of the accused, namely Shivnadh.

The prosecution, after completing the due and necessary investigation, submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate First Class who committed the case for trial. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, but acquitted the other co-accused, Shivnadh, of the charges under Sections 304 and 34. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal.

Reasoning

Referring to the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness, the Bench noted that this witness had not stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. The Bench noted that the Trial Court, with an object to get the answer to find out relevant facts had put questions which were beyond the power conferred under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

The Bench stated that Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers vast and unrestricted powers on the trial Court to put any question he pleases in any form at any time, to any witness, or to the parties, about any fact, relevant or irrelevant in order to discover relevant facts.

The Bench noted that the Star witness, PW1, who was the wife of the deceased, in examination-in-chief had not stated anything about the involvement of the appellant with the crime in question and even in the cross-examination she admitted that the assault was started when she was in her house and after hearing the sound, she came out from the house. She voluntarily stated that, seeing the assault, she requested both the accused to leave her husband, but nowhere stated the name of the appellant. Considering such circumstances, the Bench held that the Trial Court, in the garb of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, could not ask the questions which might have compelled any witness to answer.

“Thus, the manner in which the question has been put by the learned trial Court it will amount to intimidating the witness or to confuse or coerce the witness. Thus, this question and the answer are not sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence for which he has been charged”, it added.

Affirming the view that the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act is meant to advance the cause of justice and discovery of truth, not to tilt the balance in favour of either party, the Bench found that the Trial Court had put a leading question as to the direct commission of the alleged offences by the accused person, which had prompted the witness to say affirmatively; however when the same question was put forth, the witness had answered that the accused had assaulted the deceased, which was against the jurisprudence of the role of the judge during trial of cases.

Taking note of the fact that the witness had not supported the case of the prosecution, the Bench held that the question put forth by the Trial Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act was not sustainable. The Bench thus allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Cause Title: Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:41565)

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: