Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010237482024 2025:GAU-AS:13658 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./449/2024 BAKKAR ALI AND ANR S/O LATE KHOIMUDDIN SK. R/O VILL- BELGURI PART-II, P.O. BELGURI, P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: JOHIR ALI @ CHIKA SK S/O LATE ADU SK @ ABDUL KADER R/O VILL- BELGURI PART-II P.O. BELGURI P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P, ASSAM 2:MUSSTT. SONABHAN BIBI W/O LATE MD. DELBOR ALI R/O VILL- BELGURI PART-II P.O. BELGURI P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST.DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I HAQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. G U AHMED (R-2),MR. R ISLAM (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ::O R D E R :: 13.10.2025 Heard Mr. I. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present application is filed under Section 438/442 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 assailing an order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 194/2012, whereby the prayer of the accused petitioner to lead defence evidence was disallowed. In the case, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had already been recorded, in which he stated that he would not adduce defence evidence. 3. Vide order dated 12-11-2024, further proceedings in Sessions Case No. 194/2012 pending before learned Additional Session Judge, Dhubri is under an order of stay granted by this Court. As already stated at the outset, the revision petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his subsequent prayer for examining defense witness. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 25-10-2024. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the informant, contends that in examination under Section 313 CrPC, there was a question regarding defense witness. The answer was in the negative and the case is an old pending case and therefore, there is no infirmity Page No.# 3/5 in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the informant further submits that the prayer to adduce defense evidence is nothing but an afterthought made to delay the proceedings. 6. Undoubtedly, the case is an old pending one and the learned trial court is endeavoring to dispose of the same. 7. Under the provisions of section 313 Cr.P.C as it existed then – after the completion of prosecution evidence, it is mandatory for the court to question the accused on the case. The interpretation of the said provisions in a catena of decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court means that all the incriminating materials have to be put to the accused at that stage. From the statutory provision, it does not appear that a question regarding his defense evidence has to be put. Rather, Section 233 Cr.P.C provides that if a accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter his defense and in the absence thereof, the court can proceed to the stage of argument envisaged under section 234 CrPC. 8. In my considerable opinion, in the examination under 313 CrPC [351 BNSS], even if an accused answers in the negative to a question regarding adducing of defense evidence - that in itself may not be an absolute bar in allowing a subsequent prayer for adducing defense evidence. Thus, such a prayer can be allowed at a subsequent stage on principle. However, whether it is actually done so, would obviously depend on facts and circumstances of the case and also upon satisfaction of the court that the same is not by way of delaying tactics on part of the accused. 9. Undoubtedly, the present case before the learned trial court is an old pending one and as already observed, the learned trial court, with an endeavor Page No.# 4/5 to expeditiously dispose of the same, dismissed the prayer of the defense. It appears that the examination under 313 CrPC was conducted on 06-09-2024 and the petition filed by the revision petitioner as accused was done so on 25- 10-2024, which came to be rejected, giving rise to the present proceeding. 10. It is also clear that the said application of the defense seeking to adduce defense evidence was its first subsequent prayer, after the Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. 11. Giving a sufficient opportunity to the defense is an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution. At the same time, speedy trial and adjudication of criminal case from the point of view of the informant/victim is also one facet of such fundamental right, though the same accrues to the accused as well. So in a situation like this, the competing interests of justice have to be balanced and an effort has to be taken to take a fair decision. 12. The learned trial court was justified in its own way in passing the impugned order dated 25-10-2024 on the grounds stated therein. 13. Nevertheless, I am of the considered view that by way of balancing the competing interests of justice as mentioned above, the revision petitioner as accused can be given a limited time frame to adduce defense evidence, where after the case can be disposed of. Accordingly, despite the aforesaid observation regarding the impugned order, the same is interfered with. The revision petitioner as accused before the learned trial court shall move an application on or before the date fixed, indicating the witnesses it seeks to examine on its behalf and thereafter steps shall be taken for examination of defense witnesses. The learned trial court shall endeavor to complete the defense evidence within a period of 2 months. Page No.# 5/5 14. The interim order of stay stands vacated. The accused shall appear before the learned trial court on 13.11.2025. 12. The revision petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant