3 months ago
1
In a ruling reinforcing just proceedings rights of the accused persons successful transgression cases, the Karnataka High Court has directed a proceedings tribunal to defer cross-examination of a premier witnesser successful a execution lawsuit till the introspection of remaining witnesses “to forestall vulnerability of the defence strategy that whitethorn alteration different witnesses to tailor their testimony.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the bid portion allowing the petition filed by Ravindra Kumar and Manoj Kumar Sahani, some natives of Bihar, who are accused successful the lawsuit of murdering Chotu Kumar, besides from Bihar, during a quarrel successful 2023 successful Surathkal constabulary presumption limits successful Dakshina Kannada district. The unfortunate had succumbed to injuries.
Application rejected
A sessions tribunal successful Mangaluru successful June 2025 rejected their exertion filed nether Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), for deferring cross-examination of prosecution witnesser (PW)-1 till the completion of introspection of 7 different witnesses.
The sessions tribunal had cited imaginable hold successful completion of trial, and trouble successful getting the PW-1 from Bihar again for cross-examination, and imaginable witnesser intimidation. Section 231(2) of Cr.PC gives powerfulness to proceedings tribunal judges “to defer cross-examination of immoderate witnesser until immoderate different witnesser oregon witnesses person been examined”.
The High Court emphasised that “discretion nether Section 231(2) of Cr.PC is not ornamental but purposive, representing statutory designation that fairness of proceedings is simply a substantive warrant flowing from Article 21”.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgement connected introspection of aggregate witnesses deposing connected the aforesaid acceptable of facts, the High Court said that “premature vulnerability of the defence strategy whitethorn alteration consequent witnesses to tailor their testimony, thereby imperilling them the fairness of trial.”
Multiple witnesses
The High Court noted that successful the contiguous lawsuit galore witnesses are relatives and their neighbours, who had fixed identical statements to the police.
The apprehension of the accused that aboriginal cross-examination would laic bare their defence cannot beryllium brushed speech arsenic fanciful. Such apprehension is not lone plausible, but judicially recognised, the tribunal said, portion pointing retired that the sessions tribunal had overlooked a cardinal question whether denial of deferment would prejudice the defence.
