The court emphasized the importance of allowing questions during cross-examination that affect the truth of the imputation conveyed or discredit the witness, and highlighted the significance of cross-examination in testing the veracity of evidence.

Mukta Gupta, J.— (ORAL)

1. At the outset learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the present petition be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is treated as petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Registry to re-number the petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is limited to the disallowance of two important questions as irrelevant during the cross-examination of PW22 ACP Mahavir Singh, Investigating Officer of case FIR No. 161/2008 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 302/323/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is facing trial in a case of murder and is in judicial custody for a period of over four years. While the Petitioner was cross-examining PW22 he asked two questions to the Investigating officer as to whether it was correct that DD Nos. 9 and 10 were based on the documents Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW17/A respectively. Both these questions were disallowed by the learned Trial Court as irrelevant. According to the learned counsel both Ex. PW12/A and PW17/A have been adduced in the evidence by the prosecution. The reason for asking these questions from the witness was that the version recorded in the two DD entries was contrary to each other which could help the Petitioner in discrediting the prosecution version qua the place of occurrence and the sequence of events. The Court having disallowed the question, the Petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence. Reliance is place on Jones vs. National Coal Board, 1957 (2) All E.R. 155.

4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the learned Trial Court has right to control the cross-examination and disallow irrelevant questions. Section 148 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the Trial Court to use his discretion judiciously and disallow questions which are irrelevant to control the proceedings. Having exercised that option being the best judge in the circumstances of the case, this Court should not interfere in exercise of discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is required to be used sparingly. The questions sought to be put did not elicit the truth of imputation nor discredited the witness. Hence the learned Trial Court rightly disallowed the same as irrelevant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute to the proposition that the Courts conducting trial have to use their discretion in disallowing irrelevant questions during cross-examination. The said jurisdiction is circumscribed in Section 148 of Evidence Act which states as under:

“148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer -If any such question relates to matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion the Court shall have regard to the following considerations;

(1) Such questions are proper if they are of such nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies; (2) Such questions are proper if they are of such nature that he truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies; (3) Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of the imputations made against the witness’s character and the importance of his evidence; (4) The court may if it sees fit, draw from the witness’s refusal to answer, the inference that the answer if given would be unfavorable.”

6. A perusal