Site navigation

In State of M.P. v. Badri Yadav (Supreme Court, 31 March 2006), prosecution witnesses already examined,…

In Badri Yadav the Supreme Court held that CrPC s.233(3) (now section 256(3) BNSS) could not be used to get round the rejected recall application by bringing back recanting…

Choose your answer

In State of M.P. v. Badri Yadav (Supreme Court, 31 March 2006), prosecution witnesses already examined, cross-examined and discharged later recanted. Their recall application had been rejected. Could section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now section 256(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) then be used to reintroduce them as defence witnesses in the manner attempted?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

In Badri Yadav the Supreme Court held that CrPC s.233(3) (now section 256(3) BNSS) could not be used to get round the rejected recall application by bringing back recanting prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses; such a course defeated the ends of justice. The accused's ordinary right to lead defence evidence was not denied.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic