The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in the judgment titled Sachin s/o Dinesh Parmar v. State of Madhya Pradesh that it is expected from the Judges of the Trial Court to be patient and tolerant in their approach towards the Trial Court lawyers during the examination of witnesses. It must be apprised here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has observed thus in a matter challenging the order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby the right of the petitioner accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer had been closed.
Factual Background
This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer was closed.
Cases of Both Parties
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the questions which were put to the Investigating Officer were relevant and even otherwise the learned Judge of the trial court ought not to have closed the right of the petitioner which is a valuable right and all the more important in a serious offence like Section 376 of IPC. Thus, it is submitted the impugned order be quashed and the learned Judge of the Trial Court be directed to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the Investigating Officer.
On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of trial Court in passing the impugned as it is necessary for the court also to curb such practice of asking irrelevant questions in the cross-examination.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court at the outset stated that a bare perusal of the aforesaid proceeding and the subsequent order passed by the learned Judge of the trial court leaves no manner of doubt that viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it defeats the entire purpose of the right of an accused to cross-examine the witness.
"It is apparent that only one question was asked by the counsel for the petitioner prior to the impugned order was passed and regardless of its admissibility or relevance, the learned Judge of the trial court ought not to have closed the right of the petitioner to cross examine the witness. It is trite that cross-examination is the only tool available to a defence lawyer to test the veracity of a prosecution witness, it is the only way out to an accused to clear his name from the alleged offence hence his right to cross examine a witness cannot be curtailed in such a cavalier manner.”
Having said so, the court opined that cross-examination of a witness is an art which, though can be performed by any lawyer in a black coat but it is very difficult to master the same as it takes years of hard work and exposure to trials that one can have some expertise in it.
"It is only through a long and hard exercise of trial and error method that a lawyer learns the art of cross-examination but if the judge presiding over the matter is impatient or edgy, it not only culminates into order like the impugned one, but also hampers the overall learning process or grooming of a lawyer who, before becoming an expert trial court lawyer, is bound to falter many times by asking irrelevant or inadmissible questions to a witness in the box. Thus, it is expected from the judges of the Trial court to be patient and tolerant in their approach towards the Trial Court lawyers during the examination of witnesses.”
It was further observed that,
“In the considered opinion of this Court, if the learned Judge was of the opinion that despite his warnings the counsel appearing for the petitioner has continued to ask irrelevant questions, then other modes were also available to the learned Judge of the trial court as are prescribed in the Evidence Act, 1872 from Sections 146 to 152 and in some exceptional cases, the learned judge may also resort to the measure like imposing cost on the counsel for repeatedly and recklessly asking the irrelevant and inadmissible questions but, instead of taking resort of such procedure, the learned Judge has closed the right of the accused to cross examine the witness, which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.”
Held
“In view of the same, the impugned order being contrary to law cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The learned Judge of the trial Court is also directed to recall the Investigating Officer, P.W.15 D.K. Tiwari and allow the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine him. It is made clear that if any irrelevant question is asked by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Judge would be at liberty to take appropriate steps as are permissible under law. With the aforesaid, the present M.Cr.C. stands allowed. Certified copy, as per rules.”
Case Details
Case Name: Sachin s/o Dinesh Parmar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 35901-2021
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Picture Source :
