Trial courts must adjudicate objections regarding leading questions carefully to maintain trial integrity while preventing unnecessary delays in proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Under assail is the order dated 16th May 2023 passed in Criminal M.P. No. 639/2023 in Special S.C. No.14 of 2022 (CC. No. 01/2015).

2. The order impugned passed by the Special Court is made against the objection petition filed by the accused in Special S.C. No. 14 of 2022. It is not in dispute that trial commenced in Special S.C. No. 14 of 2022 and prosecution witnesses 1 to 38 have already been examined. During the pendency of the present criminal original petition, the trial Court proceeded with examination of further witnesses and as on today, 57 witnesses are examined.

3. While examining PW45 alleged leading question was asked by the Public Prosecutor, which was objected by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court. The objection was reduced in writing by way of memo/objection petition and the said objection petition was entertained and the trial Court permitted the prosecution side to file counter-statement on the objection petition and the impugned order dismissing the objection petition was passed, which resulted in filing of the present criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Mr.C.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a fair trial is the basic right of an accused. At no circumstances the trial be allowed to be derailed by allowing the prosecution to examine new witnesses or to put leading questions on the witnesses contrary to the statement made by the witness under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. In the present case, surprisingly the learned Public Prosecutor presented a laptop, while examination of PW45 was in progress and shown some pictures to PW45 and asked leading questions. Under Section 141 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , no such leading questions can be asked by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, on behalf of the accused, an objection petition was filed before the Special Court.

6. It is contended that leading question in the present case would cause prejudice to the case of the accused. The prosecutor asked month and year of the alleged occurrence and the said details are not available in 161(3) statement given by PW45 in the instant case. Thus, in the interest of fair trial, the said portion of the deposition of PW45 is to be eschewed.

7. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the prosecution is entitled to examine the evidence by showing some photographs. There is no prohibition or impediment for showing such photographs through videos or through laptops or through any electronic device to the witness to elicit the truth behind the statement given by such witness under Section 161(3) of the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE .

8. That apart, the trial Court considered the nature of the alleged leading question asked by the learned Public Prosecutor and made a finding that the question asked about month and year of the alleged occurrence is not amounts to leading question. The trial Court perused the evidence of PW45 and formed an opinion that there is no leading question asked on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Recording the other objection raised, the trial Court found that those allegations are unconnected with the examination of PW45 or the alleged leading questions.

10. We have considered the arguments made on behalf of the respective parties to the lis on han