Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution 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 the 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 deferred until all such witnesses are examined. The respondents argued that if cross-examination of the first eye witness was conducted, the defence would be exposed, and subsequent witnesses might improve their statements, causing prejudice. The prosecution opposed the application, contending that such a course would allow the accused to pressurize witnesses. The Sessions Court allowed the application, observing that there was a possibility of subsequent witnesses making improvements if cross-examination of the first witness was recorded. The State challenged this order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the order was a discretionary order under Section 231(2) CrPC and was not illegal or perverse. The court noted that the order did not cause any prejudice to the prosecution and that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly. 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 Sessions 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 until all such witnesses are examined. The High Court held that the order was within the trial court's discretion, not illegal or perverse, and did not cause any prejudice to the prosecution. The petition under Article 227 was dismissed. (Paras 3-7) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court under Article 227 can interfere only if the subordinate court's order is illegal, perverse, or without jurisdiction. Since the impugned order was a discretionary order under Section 231(2) CrPC and not a final order, no interference was warranted. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court's order allowing deferred cross-examination of all eye witnesses under Section 231(2) CrPC was illegal or perverse, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the Sessions Court's order dated 17.01.2018. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Section 231(2) CrPC
- deferred cross-examination
- discretion of trial court
- no interference under Article 227
- possibility of witness improvement
- prejudice to accused
