Karnataka High Court defers cross-examination of witnesses in murder case to prevent exposure of defence strategy

In a ruling reinforcing fair trial rights of the accused persons in criminal cases, the Karnataka High Court has directed a trial court to defer cross-examination of a prime witness in a murder case till the examination of remaining witnesses “to prevent exposure of the defence strategy that may enable other witnesses to tailor their testimony.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Ravindra Kumar and Manoj Kumar Sahani, both natives of Bihar, who are accused in the case of murdering Chotu Kumar, also from Bihar, during a quarrel in 2023 in Surathkal police station limits in Dakshina Kannada district. The victim had succumbed to injuries.

Application rejected

A sessions court in Mangaluru in June 2025 rejected their application filed under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), for deferring cross-examination of prosecution witness (PW)-1 till the completion of examination of seven other witnesses.

The sessions court had cited potential delay in completion of trial, and difficulty in getting the PW-1 from Bihar again for cross-examination, and possible witness intimidation. Section 231(2) of Cr.PC gives power to trial court judges “to defer cross-examination of any witness until any other witness or witnesses have been examined”.

The High Court emphasised that “discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.PC is not ornamental but purposive, representing statutory recognition that fairness of trial is a substantive guarantee flowing from Article 21”.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment on examination of multiple witnesses deposing on the same set of facts, the High Court said that “premature exposure of the defence strategy may enable subsequent witnesses to tailor their testimony, thereby imperilling them the fairness of trial.”

Multiple witnesses

The High Court noted that in the present case many witnesses are relatives and their neighbours, who had given identical statements to the police.

The apprehension of the accused that early cross-examination would lay bare their defence cannot be brushed aside as fanciful. Such apprehension is not only plausible, but judicially recognised, the court said, while pointing out that the sessions court had overlooked a fundamental question whether denial of deferment would prejudice the defence.