Fair opportunity to defend: conviction set aside and matter remanded after denial of cross-examination and defence evidence.

An accused's conviction cannot be sustained where the proceedings do not afford a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, lead defence evidence, and address arguments. Where repeated requests to recall the witness are rejected and the defence is effectively closed, the denial of a fair chance to defend goes to the root of the case. The proper course in such circumstances is to set aside the conviction and sentence and remit the matter for fresh disposal after giving the accused an effective opportunity to defend herself.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and lead defence evidence. (ii) Whether the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and lead defence evidence.

Analysis: The record showed that the accused was afforded only a limited opportunity for further cross-examination of the complainant, while successive requests to recall the witness were rejected and the defence evidence was closed. The accused was also denied effective opportunity to adduce defence evidence and address arguments. The overall conduct of the proceedings indicated that a fair chance to present the defence was not ensured.

Conclusion: The accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend herself.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court.

Analysis: Since the denial of reasonable opportunity went to the root of the defence, the conviction could not be sustained. The appropriate course was to set aside the conviction and sentence and remit the matter so that the accused could further cross-examine the complainant and lead defence evidence if so advised.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside and the matter was liable to be remanded.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned conviction and appellate confirmation were vacated, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal after granting the accused a fair opportunity to defend.

Ratio Decidendi: When an accused is not granted a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness and lead defence evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained and the matter must be remanded for fresh adjudication after affording such opportunity.

---