Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
KANTILAL DEVABHAI VAGHELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 11249 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR KALPESH M PANDIT
For the Respondents: MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP
The admissibility of questions in cross-examination concerning contradictions must be evaluated based on evidentiary value, determined at trial's end.
Headnote:The petition seeks to quash a decision by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, pertaining to a cross-examination question in ACB Case No. 10 of 2021, rejected for lack of material contradiction. The court underlined that evidentiary value and its significance should be determined later in the trial as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing advocates for respective parties. (Para 1) |
| 2. allowed question in cross-examination for trial evaluation. (Para 2) |
| 3. establishing evidentiary value of contradictions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. defense to question witness; merits to be assessed at trial. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad (Annexure-A) dated 25.07.2025 in ACB Case No.10 of 2021 rejecting the question asked by the defence Counsel on behalf of the accused to the prosecution witness, original complainant in the cross-
examination para 20 of the deposition.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, it appears that while conducting the cross-examination of PW-1 below Exhibit 24 in ACB Case No. 10 of 2021, the defence sought to put a question based on the additional statement recorded during the investigation of the complainant. In the said additional statement, reference to a panchnama has been made. The defence sought to put the question for the purpose of proving a material contradiction; however, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the request, holding that the said question did not pertain to any material contradiction.
4. On perusal of the record and considering the nature of the question, it appears that the question sought to be put is based on the additional statement and not directly on the panchnama. Whether the said question amounts to a material contradiction or otherwise, and its evidentiary value, is an aspect to be determined at the fag end of the trial. To prove any contradiction, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act / Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, the attention of the witness is required to be drawn to the relevant parts of the writing before it is used for contradiction. Merely permitting the question to be put does not, in itself, cause any prejudice. At the stage of appreciation of evidence, the concerned Presiding Officer shall have to decide whether the alleged contradiction or omission is material or minor, and whether it goes to the root of the case, after granting opportunity to both sides.
5. In view of the above, and without entering into the merits of the matter, it is directed that the learned advocate appearing for the defence shall be permitted to put the said question to the witness, and the learned Adl. Sessions Judge shall record the answer. The question’s evidentiary value, and whether it constitutes a material or minor contradiction or omission, shall be decided at fag end of the trial after affording opportunity to both the parties.
