Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand holds recording prosecution evidence in absence of accused violated fair trial guarantees under Article 21 and Section 273 CrPC.
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered a fresh trial in a murder case after finding serious procedural lapses during the original proceedings. The Court held that recording prosecution evidence in the absence of the accused violated both Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order in the case of Sonu Ram Pachauri v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 12210/2025).
Conviction Challenged Before High Court
The accused challenged the trial court’s conviction and sentence before the High Court.
While hearing the appeal, the Court examined the trial records. It found that the trial court had recorded statements of several prosecution witnesses when the accused were not present in court.
Court Examines Section 273 CrPC
The High Court noted that Section 273 CrPC requires courts to record evidence in the presence of the accused, except in limited circumstances permitted by law.
Justice Dhand observed that an accused has the right to hear the evidence presented against him. The accused also has the right to observe the conduct and demeanour of witnesses during their testimony.
According to the Court, these safeguards form an essential part of a fair trial. The Constitution protects this right under Article 21.
No Valid Exemption Under Section 317 CrPC
The Court also found that the trial court had not passed a valid order under Section 317 CrPC to exempt the accused from personal appearance.
Justice Dhand stated that courts can record evidence in the absence of an accused only when a lawful exemption exists. In this case, no such exemption had been granted.
As a result, the procedure adopted during the trial violated mandatory legal safeguards.
Court Rejects Reliance on Section 299 CrPC
The prosecution argued that the accused had absconded. Therefore, it claimed that the court could record evidence in their absence under Section 299 CrPC.
The High Court rejected this argument.
The Court explained that Section 299 CrPC applies only when a court formally records its satisfaction that the accused has absconded and cannot be arrested in the near future.
After reviewing the record, the Court found that these legal requirements had not been fulfilled before the evidence was recorded.
Fair Trial Is Part of Article 21
Justice Dhand emphasized that the right to a fair trial is an inseparable part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court stated that procedural safeguards cannot be ignored, even in serious criminal cases. These safeguards exist to ensure fairness and protect the integrity of the justice system.
The Bench further observed that denying an accused the opportunity to participate in proceedings and hear witness testimony undermines the foundation of criminal justice.
Conviction Set Aside
In view of these procedural violations, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Court remanded the matter for a de novo trial. It directed the trial court to examine prosecution witnesses afresh in the presence of the accused and in full compliance with criminal procedure requirements.
