High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Clarifies Law on Deferring Cross-Examination and preparation of Case calendar

Ravinder Kumar & Others vs. UT of J&K

Introduction

In a significant judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Sekhri, clarified the scope and procedure for deferring the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in criminal trials. The case, CRM(M) No. 352/2025, was filed by Ravinder Kumar and others (the petitioners) against the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (the respondent), challenging the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, which had declined their request to defer the cross-examination of six key eye-witnesses in a murder trial.

Case Background

·       Case Title: Ravinder Kumar and others vs. Union Territory of J&K

·       Trial Court Case: UT of J&K v. Parshotam Singh and others

·       Relevant Sections: Sections 120B, 447, 427, 302, 307, 506, 147, and 201 IPC

The petitioners, accused in a serious criminal case, sought to defer the cross-examination of six eye-witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8) until all had been examined-in-chief. Their main argument was that these witnesses were closely related and would testify on the same set of facts, and early cross-examination could reveal their defense strategy, allowing subsequent witnesses to tailor their testimony.

Trial Court's Decision

The Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, rejected the petitioners' application, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Kerala v. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297 and the Bombay High Court's decision in Pardip Kundlikrao Kute v. State of Maharashtra (2002 SCC Bom. 2294). The trial court held that:

·       The application was filed after the examination-in-chief of PW1-Jagir Singh was completed, whereas it should have been filed when the calendar for examination of witnesses was drawn.

·       The apprehension that subsequent witnesses would tailor their testimony was hypothetical and not a sufficient ground for deferral.

High Court's Analysis

Justice Rajesh Sekhri found the trial court's reasoning legally flawed and clarified the following points:

1. Discretion under Section 254(3) BNSS

Section 254(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 231(2) CrPC, gives the trial judge discretion to defer cross-examination of any witness until other witnesses have been examined. However, this is not an absolute right and must be exercised judiciously.

2. Timing of Application

The Supreme Court in Rasheed had stated that requests for deferral should "preferably" be made before the case calendar is set, but this is not an absolute requirement. The High Court held that as long as the application is made before the commencement of cross-examination, it is timely.

3. Balancing Prejudice

The main consideration is whether denying deferral would prejudice the accused. The court must weigh the risk of witnesses tailoring their testimony against the possibility of undue influence, threats, delay, or inconvenience to the prosecution.

4. Guidelines for Trial Courts

The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court's guidelines:

·       Prepare a detailed case calendar at the commencement of the trial.

·       Schedule witnesses testifying on the same facts closely together.

·       Grant deferral only for sufficient reasons.

·       Specify a proximate date for deferred cross-examination.

·       Protect witnesses from intimidation or undue influence.

High Court's Conclusion

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, holding that:

·       Applications to defer cross-examination need not be filed before the case calendar is set, but must be made before cross-examination begins.

·       Judicial discretion under Section 254(3) BNSS must be exercised to prevent prejudice to the accused and to ensure a fair trial.

·       Each application must be considered on its merits, without rigid procedural technicalities.

Significance of the Judgment

This decision in Ravinder Kumar & Others vs. UT of J&K reinforces the principle that criminal trials must be fair, and courts must balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect witnesses and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. It provides clear guidance for lower courts on managing witness examination and upholds the importance of judicial discretion in procedural matters

Print Page