Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Pulkit Arya - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.420 of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024
Evidence - Cross Examination - Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 39 - The court upheld the trial court's decision to restrict further cross-examination of a witness, emphasizing the relevance of questions under the Evidence Act and the right to privacy.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist challenged the trial court's order rejecting further cross-examination of PW 23, arguing that the opportunity for such examination was warranted based on prior court orders and the need for a fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality in the trial court's order, affirming that the cross-examination had been completed and that the trial court's restrictions were lawful and justified under the Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying further cross-examination of PW 23 and whether the revisionist was entitled to such an opportunity based on previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's order did not unlawfully restrict the revisionist's right to cross-examine, as the questions permitted were to be determined based on their relevance under the Evidence Act.
Result: The revision is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 03.05.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2023, State Vs. Pulkit Arya and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the trial”). By it, an application filed by the revisionist to further cross examine PW 23 has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. In the trial, an application bearing No. 351B was presented by the revisionist, seeking further cross examination of PW 23. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. This application reads as follows:-
The above noted case is fixed for today, however on dated 7.10.2023, part of cross examination was done in this Hon’ble Court of P.W. 23, further an application was decided U/s 39 Evidence Act which was further presented to Hon’ble High Court.
In the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on dated 26.02.2024, the opportunity to further cross examine P.W.23 stands open for defence.
It is therefore being prayed that the Hon’ble Court in the light of abovesaid may kindly summon P.W.23 Pushpdeep Baboria for further cross-examination on the next date in the interest of justice.
Dated – 26/04/24
Counsel for Presented by”
4. The court below held that on 07.10.2023, the cross examination of PW 23 had already been done and on that date, no application was given by the defence that cross examination of PW23 is pending. The impugned order also observed that this Court has not given any opportunity to further cross examine PW23.
5. The record reveals that during investigation of the case, data from the mobile phone of PW23 was retrieved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It appears that entire chat was given to the revisionist. Before PW23 could be examined, an application was moved on behalf of the Special Public Prosecutor with the following request:-
Such other orders be also passed as deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
6. After hearing the parties, by the order dated 07.10.2023, the Court observed that as per prosecution the WhatsApp chats from the date, the deceased joined the resort till her death, are relevant and any chat prior to the deceased joining the resort would be volalative of the privacy of the deceased. The Court further observed that it would be justified and as per law, if the defence ask question on the relevant and related chats of the deceased and the witnesses. The Court also observed that as and when the defence will cross-examine the witness, the relevancy of the question would examine and the prosecution may then raise objection, which may be decided accordingly.”
7. That order dated 07.10.2023 was further challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 800 of 2023, Pulkit Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand (“the revision”) before this Court which was decided by this Court on 26.02.2024, in paras 12, 13 & 14, this Court observed as follows:-
The court affirmed that cross-examination must adhere to the relevance of questions as per the Evidence Act, ensuring the protection of privacy rights.
The court clarified that relevancy of evidence governs cross-examination, and no blanket restrictions can be placed on questioning witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must avail the opportunities given by the court, and a mere change of counsel does not suffice as a reason for not cross-examinin....
The court emphasized the importance of completing cross-examination within the time frame set by the High Court and allowed two additional days for cross-examination as a special case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the plenary power of the court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witnes....
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial, and courts must allow such opportunities unless legally justified otherwise.
The right to a fair trial includes the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the court may set aside the closure of evidence to ensure this right is upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
