Sr. No.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 14.05.2025 Pronounced on: 19.05.2025 Ravinder Kumar and others ….Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate V/s UT of J&K ….Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. R. K. Kotwal, Special PP.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside order dated 15.04.2025, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, [“the trial court”] in case „UT of J&K v. Parshotam Singh and others‟ under Sections 120B, 447, 427, 302, 307, 506, 147 and 201 IPC, in terms whereof, their plea for deferring cross examination of six eye-witnesses, came to be declined.

2. The case set out by the petitioners is that out of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, the six eye-witnesses cited in the challan, PW2-Balbir Singh is father of deceased Avtar Singh, PW1-Jagir Singh is cousin of Balbir Singh, PW5- Tajinder Singh is son of Jagir Singh, PW7-Kamal Kour is wife of Balbir Singh and PW8-Surinder Singh is brother-in-law of Balbir Singh and they, being closely related, are eye witnesses to the same set of facts, alleged in the challan. Examination-in-chief of first prosecution witness, PW1-Jagir Singh was concluded on 07.04.2025 and on the day following i.e. on 08.04.2025, they filed application, under Section 254(3) BNSS for deferment of cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 until they are examined in chief.

3. It is contention of the petitioners that when a number of witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution to prove the same set of facts, the Court, on prayer made by the defence, is obliged to defer cross examination of said witnesses until all of them are examined because their cross examination may disclose the defence strategy and other prosecution witnesses get an opportunity to fill the lacunae in the prosecution case against the accused. This course, according to the petitioners, is required to be adopted by the Court to rule out the possibility of subsequent prosecution witnesses, giving evidence on similar facts, to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy, which shall be prejudicial to the accused and hamper the prospect of a fair trial. According to the petitioners, the deferment of cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses, would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution.

4. The plea was opposed by the prosecution, on the other side, primarily, on the ground that application filed by the petitioners was premature and law does not permit wholesale deferring of cross examination of prosecution witnesses, yet to be examined in chief. It was alleged by the prosecution that petitioners accused were highly influential persons and there was possibility of undue influence and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses, if their cross examination was deferred.

5. Learned trial Court relied upon State of Kerala v Rasheed; (2019) 13 SCC 297 and Pardip Kundlikrao Kute v. State of Maharastra; 2002 SCC Bom. 2294 to dismiss the application primarily on two counts: (i) that the application was filed by the petitioners after the examination in chief of PW-1 Jagir Singh was completed, whereas it was required to be filed at the outset when calendar for examination of witnesses was drawn; and (ii) that apprehension of defence that witnesses will get a chance to improve upon their testimonies, does not hold good because Court cannot assume and presume a hypothetical situation in advance.

6. Petitioners have questioned the impugned order, on the predominant premise that learned trial court has fallen in error of law and failed to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective. It is contention of the petitioners that since examination-in-chief of the only prosecution witness, PW1-Jagir Singh, recorded