The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by the accused seeking deferment of cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses, reaffirming that such relief is discretionary and permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
The petitioner had challenged a trial court order refusing his request under Section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (and corresponding provision under the BNSS, 2023) to postpone cross-examination of four closely related witnesses, including the prosecutrix. The defence argued that immediate cross-examination would prematurely disclose its strategy and allow the prosecution to fill gaps in its case.
However, the High Court found that the application for deferment was filed belatedly, after the completion of the prosecutrix’s examination-in-chief, and not at the stage of framing the trial schedule or case calendar, as required by established judicial guidelines. The Court, in light of judicial precedents including Surender Singh vs State(NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2024 SC 3220; State of Kerala vs. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297; and Vinod Kumar vs State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, emphasised that requests for deferral can be made in the following circumstances:
i) before the preparation of the case-calendar;
(ii) when deferral is premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness;
(iii) where specific reasons are given in support of the claim that prejudice would be caused since the defence strategy would be disclosed;
(iv) only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, but not in routine manner; and
(v) however, it is within the discretion of the criminal court
Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed that mere apprehension of disclosure of defence strategy, without concrete justification, is insufficient to warrant deferment. Holding that the trial court committed no illegality or perversity, the High Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Shri Krishna Deo Singh – Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Vineeta Sharma – Government Advocate for the State.
Ms. Apoorva Singh Rajpoot and Ms. Sakshi Bhardwaj – Advocates for the complainant.
