Back
"'Tactic to Delay Trial': Gujarat HC Clears Prosecutor's Question in Rape Case"
In a swift dismissal, the
has shot down a rape accused's attempt to halt proceedings over what he claimed was a "
" posed to the victim. Justice M. R. Mengdey ruled the query—
"what did you tell him?"
—was open-ended, not suggestive, and criticized the petition as a ploy to stall the trial in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2024 before the
.
The Spark: A Single Question During Victim's Testimony
Deep Jayeshbhai Indravadan Soni faces charges under
for alleged sexual assault, including promises of marriage leading to physical relations. During the victim's
on
, the public prosecutor navigated her narrative: after she described Deep "insisting" at her home in Dandiabazaar, and clarified it was "for physical relations," the next question—
"what did you tell him?"
—drew immediate objection from the defense.
The trial court initially deferred ruling, prompting Soni's first High Court plea (Special Criminal Application No. 1736 of 2026). On , the High Court directed a prompt decision, citing Supreme Court guidelines on criminal trials ( ). The sessions judge disallowed the objection on , leading to this under .
Defense Strikes: 'Prohibited '
argued the question violated , which bar prosecutors from suggesting desired answers during a witness's . He claimed it aimed to feed the prosecution's narrative, with the trial court offering no reasoned analysis—mere reproduction of facts showing "." Pandya leaned on Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala (AIR 1993 SC 1892), urging quashing and expunging the evidence.
Prosecution Fires Back: ''
countered that the petition was pure delay tactics in a sensitive rape trial. The question, he said, was neutral, not leading, and objections were rightly overruled. The State highlighted the deposition's narrative flow, not rigid Q&A format, underscoring the accused's post-answer objection as evidence it wasn't predetermined.
Court's Sharp Dissection: Open-Ended, Not Suggestive
Justice Mengdey pored over the transcript, noting the victim's unprompted details: knowing Deep from college, marriage promises, and the insistence episode. The disputed question followed her pause after mentioning "physical relations," making it a natural probe.
"This court is at a loss to understand as to how the question put by the public prosecutor to the victim, can be said to be a
. The reply to the question could be anything."
The judge contrasted it with a truly leading hypothetical:
"Had the question been, 'as to whether she agreed for it or not', then it could, arguably, be said to be a
, as the question itself would have prompted the reply."
Dismissing
Varkey Joseph
's applicability, Mengdey affirmed no suggestion of the prosecutor's desired answer occurred.
Key Observations
-
On the Question's Nature
:
"The question, which is put by the public prosecutor to the victim, cannot be said to be of a nature, which would enable the witness to give the evidence, which the public prosecutor wishes to elicit from the witness."
-
Delay Tactic Exposed
:
"Learned APP appears to be right in contending that the present petition appears to be a tactics to further delay the trial of the offence."
-
Post-Answer Objection
:
"The answer favouring prosecution was not the only possible answer and this fact was also known to the defence and therefore, the objection was raised only after the witness had replied to the question."
No Mercy: Petition Tossed, Trial Marches On
"Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out. The petition is dismissed."
This , order reinforces prosecutorial leeway in victim testimonies, prioritizing trial momentum in sexual offense cases. It signals courts' impatience with procedural nitpicks that risk prolonging trauma for complainants, potentially streamlining evidence handling in future rape prosecutions while upholding Evidence Act boundaries.
