Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 11/2016. The respondents (accused) were facing trial for offences under sections 302, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Yogesh Vasant Kapse. During trial, the prosecution had examined four witnesses including panch witnesses and a Medical Officer. On 13.12.2017, an eye witness and the informant were summoned for deposition. The respondents filed an application (Exhibit 82) under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking that the examination-in-chief of all eye witnesses be recorded first and cross-examination be permitted thereafter. They contended that if cross-examination of the first witness was conducted, the defence would be exposed and remaining witnesses might improve their testimony, causing prejudice. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that such a course would allow the accused to pressurize witnesses. The trial court allowed the application, observing that there was a possibility of subsequent witnesses making improvements if cross-examination of the first eye witness was recorded. The State challenged this order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had exercised its discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC judiciously and there was no illegality or perversity in the order. The petition was dismissed and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Deferred Cross-Examination - Section 231(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Discretion of Trial Court - The trial court allowed an application under Section 231(2) CrPC directing that examination-in-chief of all eye witnesses be recorded first and cross-examination be deferred to prevent possibility of improvement by subsequent witnesses. The High Court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and there was no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order allowing deferred cross-examination of all eye witnesses under Section 231(2) CrPC was legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 17.01.2018. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Section 231(2) CrPC
- deferred cross-examination
- witness improvement
- discretion of trial court
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
