Crl. Misc. No.M-14173 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-14173 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 6, 2010 Jaswant Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order the trial Court has permitted the Public Prosecutor to ask the following question in examination-in-chief:- “Q. In case of hanging saliva comes from the mouth?” The said question was seriously objected to by the defence counsel but vide impugned order dated April 23, 2010, the said question has been permitted to be asked forming an opinion that no prejudice will be caused to the accused by this question as an opportunity of cross- Crl. Misc. No.M-14173 of 2010 [2] examination will be given to the defence counsel and that hypothetical question can be put to an expert. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the provisions of Sections 142 and 154 of the Evidence Act to contend that the leading questions must not be permitted in case these are objected to by the adverse party, in examination-in-chief except with the permission of Court. It has been contended that under Section 154 of the Evidence Act only those questions can be permitted by a Court to be put in examination-in-chief which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. I have heard counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through various documents as well as the impugned order. In the present case, the petitioners are being tried for the murder of Varinder Kaur. As per the opinion of the medical board, the cause of death was hanging on the basis of the ligature mark mentioned in the post-mortem report. The Board constituted to determine the cause of death opined as follows:- “The cause of death in the above case in our opinion is due to organo phosphorus poisoning and asphyxia due to hanging which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually and collectively.” The question which the Public Prosecutor had put to PW Dr.Sanjiv Hans, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Surgeon Office, Ludhiana is as follows:- “Q. In case of hanging Saliva comes from mouth?” Crl. Misc. No.M-14173 of 2010 [3] A controversy had been raised by the defence counsel that this question cannot be asked. I have carefully considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioners in reference to Sections 142 and 154 of the Evidence Act relied upon by the counsel and considered the same very carefully. In the present case, the point which is required to be determined during trial is whether the cause of death was hanging or not. The question put by Public Prosecutor will not prejudice the rights of the defence counsel because the answer in positive or negative can be challenged, if required in cross-examination by the defence counsel. Moreover, the provisions of Section 154 of the Evidence Act lay down that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person, who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party but it is not always necessary that Court should permit only those questions to be put to a witness in examination-in-chief which are to be put to him in cross-examination by adverse party. The discretion to grant permission by Court to put a question to an expert witness is guided by the principles of justice and fair play. In the present case the answer to the question put by the Public Prosecutor will enable the Court at final stage to arrive at a just conclusion. It will be in the interest of justice in case the question put by the Public Prosecutor to the expert witness is permitted. The rights of the accused are safeguarded by the right which has been granted for cross-examination. The trial Court has rightly observed that the hypothetical questions can be put to an expert witness without declaring him hostile. Crl. Misc. No.M-14173 of 2010 [4] In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. July 6, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE