The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) allowed the petition filed by the accused under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the trial court’s refusal to allow confrontation of the relevant documents. The Court ruled that the defence has the right to confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents, including photographs and site plans, during cross-examination if they help test the veracity of the witness’s testimony or the prosecution’s case.
The Court essentially clarified that the defence counsel is entitled to confrontation of a prosecution witness with relevant documents, as it falls within the permissible limits of cross-examination under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Girish observed that the object of cross-examination is to impeach the accuracy, credibility, and general value of the witness’s evidence, emphasising that denying the defence an opportunity to confront the witness with relevant evidence would defeat the purpose of the fair trial.
The Bench emphasised that Section 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (formerly Section 7 Evidence Act) recognises the relevancy of the “state of things” or circumstances under which an event occurred, including the location and environment of an alleged offence. The Bench underscored that a photograph depicting the interior of the alleged scene of occurrence and an official site plan are relevant facts, admissible for the limited purpose of cross-examination.
The Bench therefore directed the trial judge to permit the defence to confront the prosecution (landlord witness) with both the photograph of the alleged crime scene and the official site plan.
Briefly, the accused faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating the survivor. The alleged sexual acts took place in a portion of a building leased by the landlord to the accused for running a stitching unit.
During cross-examination of the landlord, the defence sought to confront him with a photograph of the interior of the said building and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer. The Trial Court, however, rejected these attempts on the ground that the documents did not fall within the scope of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (now BSA, 2023).
Appearances:
Advocate A. Rajasimhan Kum. Vykhari. K.U., for the Petitioner
Advocate Sudheer G., for the Respondent
