The main legal principle established in the judgment is the judicial and judicious exercise of discretion under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. to balance fair trial procedures, prevent undue delay, and protect witnesses from undue influence.

R.K. Gauba, J.

1. The import, scope and width of the discretion vested in the Judge presiding over a criminal trial to permit the cross-examination of a witness to be deferred until another witness has been examined is the issue of general importance posed in these proceedings.

2. The petition has been presented invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking to assail the view taken by the Sessions Judge (South), by order dated 13.04.2017, in the course of trial of sessions case against the petitioner on charge for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), arising out of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) no.375/16 of police station Ambedkar Nagar, throwing up questions that call for application of Section 231(2) Cr.P.C.

3. The FIR was initially registered for the offence under Sections 307 / 34 IPC. The charge-sheet would show that the victim (Sanjay @ Arvind) succumbed to the stab injuries as a result of which the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. Though the contentions raised here relate to a prayer made in the course of trial before the court of Sessions, the view taken respecting the discretion vested in the trial judge by Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. would also apply to trial of a warrant case instituted on a police report in the court of Magistrate in as much as the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 242 Cr.P.C confers similar discretion on the said court as well.

4. Though the petition raises a pure question of law, it is proper to consider it against such background facts as are undisputed. The case against the petitioner, and other persons facing the trial as co-accused with him, is founded primarily on the allegations made in the FIR registered on 27.06.2016 regarding an incident that statedly occurred at 4.30 p.m. on the said day. The first informant Imran told the police in the FIR that he had gone visiting a public park in Madangir area in the company of his friend Sanjay @ Arvind (the victim) where the appellant had arranged a bhandara. Imran and Sanjay @ Arvind wanted to partake the food being offered in the bhandara but the petitioner told him that the same could not be served to them as it was meant for guests. A quarrel ensued in the course of which Sanjay @ Arvind gave a slap to the petitioner who, in turn, allegedly became abusive and exhorted his nephews Deepak and Rohit to commit physical assault. It is alleged that pursuant to such provocation, and exhortation, Rohit picked up a knife and used it for stabbing Sanjay @ Arvind in his abdomen with Deepak, statedly at the instance of the petitioner, assisting by holding on to him. It was further alleged that the petitioner had also attacked Imran (the first informant) with knife inflicting injury on his thigh. It is stated that the investigation brought out that the incident was seen by two other persons, they being Abhimanyu and Shivraj Naydu @ Sullie. It also needs to be mentioned that besides Imran, Abhimanyu and Shivraj Naydu, the prosecution also rests its case, inter alia, on the evidence of at least three other public witnesses, they being Joginder Kumar, Vinay and Bhushan Satija.

5. The trial of the sessions case is pending on the file of the court of Sessions Judge (South) where the case was listed at the stage of prosecution evidence on 13.04.2017. A witness named Bhushan Singh was present before the court on that date and was examined as PW-3, and after cross-examination, was discharged. Another witness Abhimanyu (one of the three eye witnesses) was also present. However, the petitioner through his counsel moved an application praying for a direction to the prosecution to conduct the examination-in-chief of the three eye witnesses (Imran, Abhimanyu and Shivraj Naydu) before