THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Revision Case No.484 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2025 in Sessions Case No.52 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Sathupally.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 18 in S.C. No. 52 of 2024 pending before the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Sathupally, wherein they stand charged with offences punishable under Sections 143, 294(b), 506, 302, 324, 427 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is currently at the trial stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused sought to confront the witness with a video recording in order to elicit certain material facts.

To that end, an application, Crl.M.P. No. 25 of 2025, was filed seeking permission to submit pen drives containing the video and to play the same before the Court for the witness's observation. However, the trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, ‘the IEA’) had not been satisfied. Additionally, the Court noted that the defence stage arises only upon conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence. Nonetheless, the petitioners contend that confronting the witness with the videography at this stage is crucial, as it is likely to reveal facts that are material to the adjudication of the issues in the pending Sessions Case.

5. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the revision, arguing that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and therefore not amenable to revision. It is further submitted that the trial Court has meticulously considered all relevant aspects, including the non-production of the original source of the electronic evidence, and passed a well-reasoned order declining the application.

6. Supporting the prosecution’s stance, learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the accused are at liberty to present their evidence during the appropriate defence stage or at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The filing of the present application during the prosecution’s evidence stage, it is urged, is procedurally improper. Moreover, the continuation of this revision has resulted in a delay of the trial, which, according to the complainant, could prejudice the rights of the accused themselves.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. Sections 135 to 165 of the IEA govern the examination of witnesses. Among these, cross-examination is a critical component of the adversarial trial process, designed to test the veracity and credibility of a witness. The primary object of cross-examination is to elicit the truth and expose any falsehood in the witness's testimony. Specifically, Sections 145 to 150 of the IEA regulate the mode and scope of cross-examination and expressly permit a witness to be confronted with a document during such examination. The legislative intent behind these provisions is to allow the cross- examining party to highlight contradictions or clarify factual inconsistencies by confronting the witness with documents relevant to the proceedings.

9. It is well settled that the accused has a fundamental right to confront a witness with a document known to them for the purpose of effective cross-examination. Importantly, there exists no procedural mandate requiring that such documents be pre- submitted or disclosed to the Court in advance of their use during cross-examination. It is also recognized that premature disclosure may compromise the efficacy