Case Background
The case involved multiple defendants with aligned interests. During the trial, the third defendant testified first, stating that his deposition represented himself and two other defendants (defendants 1 and 2). Subsequently, the first defendant sought to testify, indicating that his evidence pertained to himself and the other two defendants. The plaintiff contested this approach, arguing that a witness should not testify on behalf of others and that such evidence should be deemed inadmissible.
Court's Analysis
Justice B.S. Bhanumathi presided over the matter and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order XVIII, Rules 1, 3, and 3A, which govern the sequence and manner of witness examinations.
Order XVIII, Rule 1: This rule grants the plaintiff the right to begin unless the defendant admits the plaintiff's facts but disputes the relief sought.
Order XVIII, Rule 3: It allows the party beginning to either present all evidence initially or reserve it to counter the evidence produced by the opposing party.
Order XVIII, Rule 3A: This mandates that a party wishing to appear as a witness must do so before any other witness on their behalf has been examined, unless permitted by the court to appear later with recorded reasons.
The court noted that while the usual practice is to examine witnesses on the same side consecutively, there is no legal prohibition against a witness testifying on behalf of themselves and others with a common defense. The court further emphasized that the credibility of such testimony hinges on its quality and trustworthiness, not merely on the number of witnesses or the sequence of their examination.
Legal Precedents and Comparative Analysis
The court's stance aligns with established legal principles emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity. For instance, the Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the credibility of a witness's testimony depends not on the number of witnesses but on the quality of evidence presented.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has observed that a final report cannot be considered substantive evidence, as it represents the collective opinion of the investigating officer, underscoring the importance of credible and direct evidence.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that in legal proceedings, the admissibility and weight of evidence depend on its inherent quality and reliability. It clarifies that witnesses with a common defense can testify on behalf of each other, provided their testimony is credible and trustworthy. This approach prevents unnecessary duplication of evidence and streamlines the judicial process without compromising the fairness of the trial.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling elucidates the flexibility within procedural laws regarding witness testimony in cases involving parties with common defenses. By prioritizing the quality and trustworthiness of evidence over procedural formalities, the court ensures that justice is administered effectively, reflecting a pragmatic approach to the complexities of legal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.