In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of fair trial rights, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed a petition filed by Kapil Dev, setting aside the Mandi Chief Judicial Magistrate's (CJM) order that had earlier dismissed his application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Justice Virender Singh observed that even an accused who initially declined to lead defence evidence retains the right to later prove his innocence if the trial remains undecided.
Read in Hindi
Background
The case arose from a police charge sheet filed against Kapil Dev under Sections 435 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which relate to mischief by fire and criminal intimidation. After framing charges in December 2021, the trial court directed the prosecution to produce its witnesses. Thirteen witnesses were eventually examined.
When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in January 2024, he denied the allegations and stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence. The case was subsequently fixed for final arguments.
However, several months later, in September 2024, Kapil Dev moved an application under Section 311, seeking to summon the Principal of his school and produce his attendance record to show that he was on duty at Chopal on the day of the alleged incident. His plea was dismissed by the CJM on 26 April 2025.
Court's Observations
Justice Virender Singh noted that although the accused had earlier chosen not to lead evidence, his right to later prove his defence could not be taken away merely due to procedural delay.
"Negligence cannot snatch away the right of the accused to probabilize his defence," the judge remarked.
The bench found fault with the trial court’s reasoning that the defence evidence was an afterthought and that the accused could easily have travelled from Chopal to Mandi. The High Court said such observations amounted to pre-judging the merits before trial completion - something "not permissible in law."
The court further observed that the application was supported by information obtained under the Right to Information Act, showing that the accused had pursued his defence bona fide.
"The trial court ought not to have adopted a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the plea," Justice Singh observed.
He also emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the defence.
"The accused has a golden right to remain silent as well as to lead evidence later if he so chooses," the judge stated, echoing a balanced view of procedural fairness.
The Decision
Setting aside the CJM's order, the High Court allowed Kapil Dev’s petition - but not without conditions. The court imposed costs of ₹20,000, directing him to deposit the amount with the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Mandi.
The bench directed the accused to appear before the trial court on 3 November 2025 and submit his application for summoning defence witnesses within seven days. The trial court, in turn, has been authorized to take coercive steps to ensure the attendance of such witnesses if necessary.
With these directions, the High Court disposed of the petition as well as any pending applications, underlining that justice should not be defeated by technical lapses or delay - especially when the case has not yet been decided.
Case Title: Kapil Dev vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 447 of 2025
Date of Decision: 13 October 2025
Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate
Respondent's Counsel: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General
