Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Indian law (Evidence Act S.138, CrPC S.309/346 BNSS) prioritizes expeditious day-to-day examination (chief then cross) for all in-attendance witnesses, but does not require cross-examining all prosecution witnesses on the exact same day; sequential day-to-day suffices, with promptness to avoid hostility risks. Arbitrary same-day closure without opportunity violates fair trial rights, warranting recall; deferrals need recorded reasons ["POORANMAL YADAV S/O SHRI SITARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["Jaikun Nisha VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"] ["Central Bureau of Investigation VS Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali - Supreme Court"] ["Gyan Chandra VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"] ["Ekene Godwin VS State of Tamil Nadu - Supreme Court"] ["PRAKASH ALIAS OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
In the heat of a criminal trial, defense lawyers often face a pivotal question: Can the accused insist that all prosecution witnesses be cross-examined on the same day? This arises frequently when not all witnesses are present, prompting requests to defer cross-examination until everyone is produced. Understanding this issue is crucial for ensuring fair trials while adhering to procedural timelines.
Drawing from key judicial precedents under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), this post breaks down the legal position, court discretion, and practical guidelines. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
There is no absolute legal requirement or right under the CrPC for all prosecution witnesses to be cross-examined on the same day. Trial courts exercise discretion under Sections 231(2) and 242(3) CrPC to permit deferral of cross-examination for specific witnesses until others are examined, but this is exceptional, case-specific, and must balance interests without allowing wholesale deferral or refusal to cross-examine available witnesses. The accused cannot insist on or refuse partial cross-examination pending production of all witnesses, as the prosecution controls witness order and courts must ensure day-to-day progress. Sunita Devi VS State of Bihar - 2024 5 Supreme 138State of Karnataka VS Annegowda - 2006 5 Supreme 458
The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined... Sunita Devi VS State of Bihar - 2024 5 Supreme 138
These provisions empower courts to defer cross-examination discretionarily until other witnesses are examined, but this is not a right and must prevent trial delays. No straitjacket formula exists; decisions are case-by-case, balancing accused rights and prosecution evidence. Factors include undue influence, threats, tailoring testimony, memory loss, or delay under Section 309(1). Sunita Devi VS State of Bihar - 2024 5 Supreme 138
Practice guidelines mandate a post-charge case-calendar specifying dates for examination-in-chief and cross-examination, grouping same-subject witnesses proximately. Requests for deferral must be made beforehand with sufficient reasons. While granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness. Sunita Devi VS State of Bihar - 2024 5 Supreme 138State of Kerala VS Rasheed - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1100
The accused cannot refuse to cross-examine available prosecution witnesses merely because others are absent—no law mandates all-on-one-day production. Although reasonable opportunity for cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses wanted for the purpose on the same day should be afforded to the accused, there is no such law which gives right to the accused to refuse to cross-examine the P.Ws. present when others could not be produced by the prosecution for some reason or the other. PRAN GOBINDA ROY VS BIRENDRA CH ROY - 1953 0 Supreme(Gau) 23
Courts may impose costs or proceed if prosecution fails to produce all, but fault lies with non-production, not accused refusal. Wholesale deferral of multiple witnesses is impermissible, as prosecution decides order. The words 'permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred' does not indicate that the Legislature... had ever intention to permit deferring of wholesale cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. BELA BHATTACHARYA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2005 0 Supreme(Cal) 233
In practice, cases show partial cross-examinations proceeding without issue. For instance, in one matter, prosecution examined 5 witnesses, all duly cross-examined by the accused on the same date, despite more cited in the charge sheet. Md. Mirjum Ali @ Mijun Ali S/o- Raju Ali VS State Of Assam - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 309 Similarly, as far as the other prosecution witnesses are concerned, they were examined and cross-examined on the same date. Pradeep Dutta VS State (NCT Of Delhi) - 2022 Supreme(Del) 970
Trials must proceed day-to-day post-charge, with cross-examination ideally on the same or next day. Long gaps (e.g., months) create complications like memory refreshment and violate Section 309. Examination-in-chief if commenced on a particular date, the Trial Judge has to ensure that his cross-examination must conclude either on the same date or the next day if cross-examination is lengthy... But postponing the cross-examination to a longer period of 3 month is certainly bound to create legal complications. AKIL @ JAVED VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 880
As far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross examine the witness the same day or the following day. (Cross-exam not beyond 2-3 days). Surender Singh VS State (NCT Of Delhi) - 2024 5 Supreme 275Ambika Prasad VS State (Delhi Administration) - 2000 2 Supreme 633
If deferral is granted earlier, cross-exam must follow proximately. Refusal despite allowance frustrates Section 231(2). RAVI S/o SHIVLAL JI VERMA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 723
One case illustrates costs for adjournments: All present prosecution witnesses were cross-examined, but defense sought adjournment, leading to costs imposed on accused for witnesses. Sunita Devi Jain VS Bhabendra Chandra Jain and Anr. - 2013 Supreme(Gau) 663
Deferral may be allowed where witnesses speak to same facts and non-deferral risks prejudice (e.g., defense disclosure enabling tailoring), but only if all related witnesses are examined first. In one instance, deferral of PW3 was permitted until LW4/11 (same bribe facts) were examined. R. Selvan VS State through The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 170
However, even here, no blanket same-day mandate exists. All prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length in a raid case, with minor contradictions not discrediting testimonies. Prabhat Singh VS State - 2014 Supreme(Del) 1663
Additional remedies like Section 311 CrPC allow summoning further witnesses if essential for justice, as seen in a case where a doctor's petition to summon eye-witnesses was allowed despite delay. Pradeep Dutta VS State (NCT Of Delhi) - 2022 Supreme(Del) 970
Trial courts should:1. Frame post-charge case-calendar consulting parties on witness order/availability.2. Group same-fact witnesses.3. Grant deferral only exceptionally with recorded reasons/proximate dates.4. Insist on day-to-day progress, imposing costs/remand for non-cooperation.5. Deny deferral requests not pre-calendar or lacking prejudice showing.
Accused should cross-examine available witnesses to avoid closure; seek Section 311 recall if needed later. In acquittal appeals, full cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses often supports defense, as in a cheating case where documents showed no foul play after thorough cross-exam. BABULAL SAHU VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 897
For deeper insights, review precedents like State of Kerala v. Rasheed. Sunita Devi VS State of Bihar - 2024 5 Supreme 138 Always tailor strategies to your case facts with professional guidance to navigate CrPC effectively.
This post references judicial documents for educational purposes. Legal outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction.
#CrPC #CrossExamination #CriminalTrial
—Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross- examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. ... Hence, an application was submitted in writing for granting opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecution Witnesses on some other day, but the prayer made by the counsel was not accepted and the application was rejected and on the very same day, the petitione....
It is upon the trial court that the aforesaid cross-examination may be conducted on day-to-day bass. After the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e. from PW-2 to PW-9, the examination-in-chief of the other prosecution witnesses may be permitted to be done. ... has been recorded i.e. prosecution witnesses nos. 2 to 9, they be cross-examined by the petitione....
The long period of about 10 months consumed by the trial Court in this case in recording the statement of PW-1, during which period PW-1 has sided with the accused, is very disturbing Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses need to be recorded on day-to-day basis to avoid the possibility of witnesses ... Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be continued from day to day until all the witne....
Infact, when PW.1 was cross-examined by the learned Advocate appearing for accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, on 10.01.2025, the advocate appearing for petitioner has cross-examined the said witness. ... Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 before the trial Court to establish the charges levelled against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC, but petitioner/accused No.5 has not properly cross#HL_....
In this case, it was fault of the accused that the witnesses could not be cross-examined on the same day when their examination-in- chief was recorded. ... It is, therefore, stated that the witnesses had been won over as they had been cross-examined after a period of seven months of being examined-in-chief by the prosecution. It is, thus, stated that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. ... He was superficially #....
How many witnesses have been examined so far. When was the victim examined the last. How many more witnesses the prosecution intends to examine before the prosecution closes its evidence. ... Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined”. ... (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) provides th....
Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined”. ... The Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive enough to enable the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses in spite of repeated opportunities. ... Accordingly, on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-, the cross-examination was de....
Order of Examinations Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. ... In this view of the matter, both the material prosecution witnesses viz. the prosecutrix and the complainant, could not be cross examined and, therefore, I concur with the observation of learned trial court that incomplete statements of the prosecutrix a....
Order of ExaminationsWitnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. ... In this view of the matter, both the material prosecution witnesses viz. the prosecutrix and the complainant, could not be cross-examined and, therefore, I concur with the observation of learned trial court that incomplete statements of the prosecutrix and....
… the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. ... It would have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said witness was examined. As is evident, for no reason whatsoever it was deferred and the cross-examination took place after 20 months. ... To bring home the guilt of the accused, ....
as far as the other prosecution witnesses are concerned, they were examined and cross-examined on the same date.
Thereafter, the accused duly participated in the trial. The prosecution had examined 5 (five) prosecution witnesses and all the 5 (five) prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused. It appears that the defence had taken all the pleas during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. As has been iterated above, in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer had cited 7 (seven) nos.
Dashrath (PW11) was again examined as PW4 and one additional witness D.N. Kashyap (PW2) was examined by the Trial Court. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defence. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt.
All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined at length by the accused. However, except for minor contradictions, nothing material could be elicited to discredit their testimonies. The presence of the accused at B-49, Gharoli Dairy Farm, Delhi where the raid was conducted by the police officers and the victim was rescued stands proved.
All the prosecution witnesses present on that day were cross-examined. On 10.8.2007 both the complainant and accused were present along with their counsel. But from the defence side a petition was filed for adjournment of the case. The learned trial Court allowed the said petition imposing cost of Rs. 300/- to be paid by the accused to the three witnesses present on that day @ 100/- each, fixing next date on 22.10.2007 for examination of the PW 1 (complainant).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
