Cross Examination Is An Accused’s Only Tool To Prove His Innocence, And The Same Cannot Be Curtailed Superficially

Case Background

• The petitioner was accused under Sections 342, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• When the trial proceeding was being held in the Court of the 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, an Investigation Officer was examined by the Counsel of the petitioner.
• However, the Judge did not find the questions asked by the Counsel during the examination to be relevant for the case, and warned him not to continue with such questions.
• However, the Counsel interrogated further with questions that the Judge opined to be irrelevant.
• As a consequence, the Learned Judge dismissed the right of the petitioner to cross examine the witness, in his order dated 6th January 2021.

Petitioner’s Contentions

• It was submitted that the questions that were put forth in the examination of the Investigating Officer were relevant.
• Moreover, even if they weren’t, that would not quash the petitioner’s right to cross examination, and the Judge’s order is unlawful.

Respondent’s Contentions

• The Respondents argued that the order was not illegal, and that such directions are necessary to prevent unnecessary and irrelevant questions being asked during the examination of witnesses.

Court’s Order

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge as being illegal and void.
• The Court observed that the right to cross examination is an important right available to an accused to prove his innocence, and such a right cannot be dismissed for petty reasons.
• The Court also suggested other ways through which Judges can restrict the Counsels from asking unnecessary questions, for instance, one such measure is by imposing fine.
• It is advisable to the Judges to be patient and tolerant towards lawyers during the examination of witnesses as the art of cross examination can be only learned through a trial and error method,Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined.

What are your views on the case?