- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shankar v. State
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, in S.C. No. 5015/2016. That order had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to defer cross-examination of PW5 until certain other witnesses had completed their examination-in-chief. [1][2]
The prosecution had examined five witnesses, of whom PWs 1 to 4 had turned hostile. PW5 was the victim Shruti's father. The petitioner sought to cross-examine PW5, and later CWs 1, 6, 7 and 14 together because they were related witnesses expected to speak about the same facts. [2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner was entitled under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to defer cross-examination of certain witnesses until after the examination-in-chief of CWs 1, 6, 7 and 14. [1][2]
- Whether the Sessions Judge had properly exercised the judicial discretion available under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [2]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner sought permission to cross-examine the relevant witnesses together because they were related witnesses and were expected to address the same subject matter and facts. [2]
- The application was intended to prevent the defence from being disclosed during the cross-examination of one witness, thereby allowing subsequent witnesses to improve their testimony. [2]
Respondent-State
The opinion records that the learned High Court Government Pleader was heard for the respondent-State, but it does not detail the State's substantive arguments. [3]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the record and noted that PWs 1 to 4 had turned hostile, while PW5 was the father of the victim. [2]
It found that the Sessions Judge had rejected the application mainly on the view that cross-examination should not be deferred merely at the advocate's request, without adequately considering whether the witnesses would testify about the same factual matters. [2]
The Court explained that Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the trial court judicial discretion to permit cross-examination of some witnesses after the examination-in-chief of other witnesses. Deferral may be appropriate where witnesses speak about the same set of facts, because immediate cross-examination may reveal the defence and enable later witnesses to improve their testimony. [2]
On examining the witnesses' relationship and expected evidence, the Court observed that CWs 1, 6, 7 and 14 were the father, mother and sisters of the deceased Shruthi and were expected to speak about the same facts relevant to the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to allow their cross-examination together after their examination-in-chief. [2][4]
Holding and Implications
PETITION ALLOWED. The order dated 25.10.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set aside. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine CWs 1, 6, 7 and 14 after their examination-in-chief. [4]
The connected stay application, IA No. 1/2017, was disposed of as it no longer survived for consideration. The opinion does not state any broader implication or establish a new precedent; its direct effect was to permit the deferred cross-examination in the pending trial. [4]
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SITTING AT ANEKAL IN S.C.NO.5015/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 231(2) OF Cr.P.C. THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge sitting at Anekal in SC No.5015/2016, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 231(2) of cr.pc.
3. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it is noticed that the prosecution has examined as many as five (05) witnesses and out of them, four (04) witnesses viz., PWs. 1 to 4 have turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.5, who is none other than the father of the victim lady, by name Shruti was examined. At that time, when the accuseds counsel was called upon to examine the witness (PW.5), the accused made an application under section 231(2) of cr.pc. seeking permission to cross-examine this witness after examination-in-chief of CWs.1, 6, 7 & 14 on the ground that, all those witnesses are related witnesses and they speak on the same subject matter and facts. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that there is no need to provide such an opportunity and mainly the learned Sessions Judge has concentrated that, the cross-examination should not be deferred merely on asking by the advocate. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the factual aspects of the matter as to whether these witnesses would speak same factual aspects, so that, opportunity has to be given to cross-examine all the witnesses at once. On this point, it appears no attention was bestowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The provision under Section 231 of Cr.PC. in fact gives Judicial discretion to the court to pass appropriate orders for granting time to cross-examine some of the witnesses at once after their examination-in- chief. The main object of deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses is, if the witnesses speak about the same factual aspects of same set of facts, the accused has to disclose his defence and cross-examine the witnesses. If he cross-examines any one of the witnesses there may be improvements by the other witnesses. In order to avoid that, the court has discretion to defer the cross- examination of those witnesses to speak similarly on same set of facts. Therefore, on careful perusal of the statement of these witnesses, they are none other than the father, mother, sisters of deceased Shruthi, they speak about same set of facts in order to substantiate the offence under sections 498-a and 306 of ipc.
4. In the above circumstances, it is a fit case, where the learned Sessions Judge would have given opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses at once, after their examination-in-chief. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 231(2) of cr.pc. in SC No.5015/2016 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under section 231(2) of cr.pc. is hereby allowed. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine CWs.1, 6, 7 and 14 after their examination-in-Chief. In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KGR*
Alert