State Of Kerala vs Rasheed

2. The relevant facts for deciding the present Criminal Appeal, are briefly set out below:

On   the   same   day,   after   the   examination­in­chief   of   CW   1­ Narayanan was conducted, an Application under Section 231(2) of the  Cr.P.C. was filed by the Counsel for the Respondent­Accused No.   2   seeking   adjournment   of   the   cross­examination   of   CW   1­ Narayanan, as also of CWs 2 to 5, to a date after the examination­ in­chief of CWs 2 to 5 was completed. It was stated in the said Application, that the case of the Respondent­Accused No. 2 would be adversely affected if the Application was not allowed, since the defence strategy adopted by the Respondent­Accused No. 2 would be revealed to the Prosecution.

2.4. The Application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. was opposed by the Prosecution which filed a Reply, wherein it was stated that CWs 1 to 5 were not deposing with respect to the same subject­ matter.   It   was   further   stated   that   the   deferral   of   the   cross­ examination would adversely affect the Prosecution evidence. 2.5. The   Additional   Sessions   Judge  vide  Order   dated   December   20, 2017 dismissed the Application filed on behalf of the Respondent­ Accused No. 2.

3 The Additional Sessions Judge held that Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. confers a discretion on the Trial Judge to defer the cross­ examination of any witness until any other witness or witnesses have been examined. Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. does not confer a right on the accused to seek deferral in a wholesale way on the ground that the defence of the accused would become known to the Prosecution. The deferral of cross­examination, in the present case, would run counter to the general provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The   Additional   Sessions   Judge   also   observed   that   no   specific reason for deferring the cross­examination had been pleaded on behalf   of   the   Respondent­Accused   No.   2,   apart   from   a   general averment that the defence would be disclosed to the Prosecution. The   Additional   Sessions   Judge   was   of   the   view   that   the Respondent­Accused   No.   2   and   Accused   No.   7   are   “highly influential  political leaders”, and the possibility of the threats  to witnesses after their examination­in­chief, could not be ruled out. 4 Furthermore, it was observed that CWs 1 to 5 would be deposing on different facts and aspects of the case.

The Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the provisions of Sections 231(2) and 309 of the Cr.P.C. held that deferral of cross­ examination is  not  an ordinary  practice  in  a criminal  trial, and dismissed   the   Application   filed   on   behalf   of   the   Respondent­ Accused No. 2.

The High Court reversed the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge   by   a   short   unreasoned   cryptic   Order   dated   January   1, 2018, and allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 171 of 2018. It   was   directed   that   the   cross­examination   of   CWs   1   to   4   be adjourned till after the examination­in­chief of CW 5. 2.7. Aggrieved by the Order dated January 1, 2018 passed by the High Court,   the   State   of   Kerala   has   filed   the   present   Special   Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4652 of 2018 before this Court.

The examination and cross­examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross­ examination   need   not   be   confined   to   the   facts   to   which   the   witness   testified   in   his examination­in­chief…” 6 have   been   examined  or   recall   any   witness   for   further   cross­ examination.” (Emphasis supplied) The   phraseology   of   Section   231(2)   mirrors   Section   242(3)3  of   the Cr.P.C. which provides for a similar discretion to a Magistrate in the trial of a Warrant Case under Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C.

same cannot be allowed by the Court. As aforementioned, the defence of the accused will not be prejudiced at all as the examination­in­chief of the witnesses generally will proceed based on either the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or based on mahazar, etc.” (Emphasis supplied) 13 W.P. (Crl.) No. 1350 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7450 of 2017; decided on July 3, 2017  by the High Court of Delhi : 2017 Cri LJ 3875.

13. In the present case, a bald assertion was made by the Counsel for the Respondent­Accused No. 2 that the defence of the Respondent­Accused No. 2 would be prejudiced if the cross­examination of CWs 1 to 5 is not deferred until after the examination­in­chief of CWs 2 to 5. 14 The impugned Order is liable to be set aside since the High Court has given   no   reasons   for   reversal   of   the   Order   of   the   Additional   Sessions Judge,   particularly   in   light   of   the   possibility   of   undue   influence   and intimidation   of   witness(es)   since   the   Respondent­Accused   No.   2   and Accused No. 7 are “highly influential political leaders”.

14. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   the   present   Criminal   Appeal   is allowed, and the impugned Order dated January 9, 2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 171 of 2018 is set aside. The Order dated December 20, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions   Judge   dismissing   the   Application   filed   on   behalf   of   the Respondent­Accused   No.   2   stands   restored.   The   observations   made hereinabove   will,   however,   have   no   bearing   on   the   merits   of   the   case during the course of trial.

Ordered accordingly.