Defence witness rights under criminal procedure include experts and overseas witnesses, absent vexation, delay, or abuse.

Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives an accused a substantive right to adduce defence evidence and seek process for summoning witnesses of choice. Refusal is justified only if the request is vexatious, delayed, or intended to defeat the ends of justice. Defence expert witnesses may still be relevant even after prosecution experts have testified, because expert opinion based on the existing record can rebut the prosecution case. A witness is not disqualified merely because they reside outside India or previously appeared as counsel in related proceedings. The refusal to summon the proposed defence witnesses was therefore unjustified, and the defence was entitled to examine them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had a statutory right under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon defence witnesses of their choice, including expert witnesses and a witness residing outside India or previously appearing as counsel in the matter.

Analysis: Section 233 confers a substantive right on an accused to adduce evidence in defence and to obtain process for summoning witnesses, and refusal is justified only where the application is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. The proposed defence experts were not irrelevant merely because the prosecution had already examined medical experts and they had been cross-examined. Expert opinion based on existing materials can still be relevant to rebut the prosecution case. Residence outside India does not curtail the accused's right to summon a witness, and prior appearance as counsel in connected proceedings does not by itself disqualify a person from being examined as a witness if the evidence is otherwise relevant.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the proposed defence witnesses was unjustified and the defence was entitled to have them examined.

---