Prosecutor's Questioning in Rape Trial Does Not Violate Leading Question Rule: Gujarat High Court - 2026-04-07

Gujarat High Court Upholds Trial Court Procedure, Dismisses Challenge to Witness Questioning

In a definitive ruling, the High Court of Gujarat has dismissed a petition that sought to challenge a Sessions Court order regarding the permissibility of questions posed by a public prosecutor to a victim during a trial involving serious sexual offences under Sections 354(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that not every line of inquiry by the prosecution constitutes a "leading question," rejecting the petitioner’s attempt to characterize standard examination as procedurally flawed.

The Anatomy of the Dispute

The controversy stemmed from a trial in the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Bharuch (Sessions Case No. 91 of 2024). During the examination-in-chief, the public prosecutor asked the victim, “what did you tell him?” following her testimony that the petitioner (Deep Jayeshbhai Indravadan Soni) had insisted on physical relations.

The defense counsel immediately objected, arguing that the question was a "leading question" under Sections 141, 142, and 145 of the Evidence Act, intended to elicit a desired response from the witness. After initial delays and a prior High Court directive to address the admissibility of the question, the Sessions Court rejected the petitioner’s objection. This led the petitioner to move the High Court, alleging that the prosecutor was feeding the witness answers and that the trial court had acted without proper application of mind.

Defining the Boundaries of Testimony

The High Court of Gujarat, presided over by Justice M. R. Mengdey, conducted a thorough review of the proceedings. The court distinguished between permissible inquiries and leading questions—the latter being questions that suggest the answer the examiner wishes to receive.

Justice Mengdey observed that the victim’s response could have been anything; the question itself did not dictate or prompt a specific answer favorable to the prosecution. The defense’s objection was deemed particularly weak given that it was only raised after the victim had already provided her testimony.

Key Observations from the Court

The High Court did not mince words regarding the nature of the defense’s objections and the motive behind the petition:

• On the Nature of the Question: "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 leading question."
• On the Scope of Answers: "The reply to the question could be anything. The answer favouring prosecution was not the only possible answer."
• On Judicial Strategy: "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."
• On Legal Thresholds: "No such eventuality appears to be arising out of the question put by the public prosecutor to the victim. Hence, the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner renders no assistance to the petitioner."

Implications and Final Decision

By citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala , the High Court clarified that the prohibition against leading questions is designed to prevent prosecutors from putting words into a witness's mouth. In this instance, no such breach occurred.

The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder against using interlocutory applications as a mechanism to stall criminal trials. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, clearing the path for the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial without further procedural hurdles. This ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights of the accused and the court's responsibility to ensure the trial moves forward in a timely and efficient manner.