Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original accused nos. 5 and 6 in Sessions Case No. 862 of 2008 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, P.W.1 Ankush, an alleged eye witness, was being cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners and accused no. 3. The defence produced a map of the scene of offence prepared by an advocate and put certain questions to the witness based on that map. The Additional Public Prosecutor raised objections to those questions. After hearing the advocates, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order on 16.8.2008 rejecting the questions. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a criminal writ petition before the High Court. The High Court observed that although the order was interlocutory and could be challenged in appeal if the accused is convicted, the huge pendency of appeals in the High Court means appeals come up for final hearing 5 to 10 years after the trial court's decision. At such a late stage, considering objections to rejection of questions would be too late. To avoid such a situation, the trial court could allow the questions and record the answers subject to objections, and the question of relevance could be considered at the time of final decision. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another (2001 All MR (Cri) 452) which deprecated the archaic practice of passing orders on objections during evidence collecting stage and directed that the trial court should record the evidence subject to objections. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioners to put the questions to the witness and record the answers subject to the objections raised by the prosecution, and to decide the relevance of those questions at the final stage.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cross-Examination - Rejection of Questions - Trial Court's Order - The trial court rejected certain questions put to a prosecution witness during cross-examination on the ground of irrelevance. The High Court held that to avoid delay and future complications, the trial court should allow the questions and record the answers subject to objections, and the question of relevance can be considered at the final stage. (Paras 3-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Interlocutory Orders - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - The High Court entertained the criminal writ petition against an interlocutory order rejecting questions during cross-examination, noting that if the accused is convicted, the appeal may come up after 5-10 years, and at that stage it would be too late to consider such objections. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order rejecting certain questions put to a prosecution witness during cross-examination is sustainable and whether such interlocutory orders can be challenged by way of a criminal writ petition.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2008, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioners to put the questions to the witness and record the answers subject to the objections raised by the prosecution. The trial court was further directed to decide the relevance of those questions at the final stage of the trial.
Law Points
- Interlocutory orders during trial can be challenged in writ jurisdiction to avoid delay
- Trial court should record questions and answers subject to objections rather than deciding admissibility at that stage
