Discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C. allows deferring cross-examination to protect the accused's right to a fair trial, balancing between the defense's interest and prosecution’s prerogative.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC.No.186/2023 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ('the Cr.P.C. for short) calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, D.K. District, Mangaluru. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge declined to exercise discretion under Section 231 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and rejected the prayer of the accused seeking deferment of cross-examination of CW1 to CW8 until completion of their examination-in-chief.

2. Heard Sri. Vikram Raj A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioners get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.14/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The matter is committed to the Court of Session and is pending before the concerned Court as SC.No.186/2023. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. On 24.06.2025, summons were issued to the witnesses. CW-1 was present and examined as PW-1 and several documents are marked. The petitioners then filed application under Section 231 (2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking to defer cross-examination of CW-1 to CW-8 on the score that CW-1 to CW-5 are relatives, CW-6 to CW-8 are neighbours. If cross-examination is done before the examination-in-chief of all the sighted witnesses, it would become premature disclosure of defence, which would prejudice the accused, this was opposed by the State. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that no prejudice would be caused to these petitioners. It is this approach of the Trial Court that has necessitated the present petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition contending that all CW-1 to CW-8 are eyewitnesses. They would all be deposing identical. If cross-examination of CW-1 is directed to be done immediately, it would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners, as it would amount to disclosure of the defence. He would submit that the concerned Court ought to have allowed the application.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would though initially oppose the petition would leave the decision to the hands of the Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass at this juncture. The petitioners are alleged of the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the IPC. The offences are grave in nature. Summons were issued to the witnesses and CW-1 was present and examined as PW-1 on 24.06.2025. Immediately thereafter, springs the application under Section 231 (2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking deferment of cross-examination of PW-1, this is rejected by the concerned Court by the following order:

"A/c filed appln U/s 231(2) of Cr.PC to defer cross examination of CW1 to 8 on the reason that CW1 to 8 are cited as Eye witnesses and CW1 to 5 are relatives and CW6 to 8 are neighbours. If cross examination is done before the chief examination of above witnesses, there is possibility of premature disclosure of defence which will prejudice the accused and prays to allow the application.

Ld.PP filed objections submit