Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K. Singhal Fathechand Singhal vs State Of M.P. on 21 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ3145, 1997(2)MPLJ220
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.
1. This petition is finally decided for the purpose of avoiding obstruction to the trial.
2. It is the prayer of the applicant that court should give directions to the witness Vijay Kumar (complainant) to bring some documents which are in his possession and control which are connected with the trial of the petitioner and his defence in it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that those documents were relevant and necessary for the trial, however, when the prayer was made for issuing directions to the said witness Vijay Kumar to bring those documents at the time of his evidence, the court rejected his prayer by observing that the petitioner-accused may make a prayer for calling those documents to be produced in the court in his defence through defence witness.
3. Shri Jaisingh submitted that those documents are necessary at the time of evidence of complainant Vijay Kumar because those documents would be required for confronting complainant Vijay Kumar at the time of his cross-examination. According to Shri Jaisingh, if those documents are not shown to complainant Vijay Kumar in his cross examination, a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-accused. He argued further that if these documents are produced in the court in defence of the petitioner, the effect of forceful cross-examination would not be available to the petitioner. Shri Jaisingh argued further that those documents are very much necessary for the purpose of trial and, therefore, trial court should be directed to issue direction to Vijay Kumar to bring those documents in the court at the time of his cross-examination.
4. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. G. A. submitted that the order of Court shows, that those documents are not related to the prosecution witness. He justified the order of the trial court as correct, proper and legal.
5. Cross examination is a very effective weapon available to the accused. By effective cross-examination the accused can unveil the truth before the court. For effective cross-examination in some cases the witnesses are required to be confronted with the documents with which witnesses are having a nexus. A witness may not be author of a document or documents but if during the discharge of his official duty, if he was expected to come across such document/s, such witness can be asked questions in cross-examination in respect of such document or documents. The witness may disclose the information which he may have in respect of such document or documents or if he does not have any concern with such document or documents, he may state to that effect before the court in his deposition. If such witness happens to be a signatory over such document/s in those cases also he can be asked questions in respect of such document or documents and he can be confronted with such documents in the cross-examination if it is necessary for the purpose of unfolding the truth. A prosecution witness who is coming to the court with a particular story in support of the prosecution, can be cornered in the cross-examination by a document of which he is the author or on which he has signed or of which he had or has the knowledge. After all, it is the duty of the court to find out the truth and counsel for the prosecution and the defences are duty bound to assist the court in search of the truth in the trial. Therefore, it is for the court to justify its order by proper reasons when it is rejecting the prayer made by the accused for calling such document enabling him to cross-examine the prosecution witness effectively for defending him properly. Without proper enquiry the court is not expected to reject the prayer of such an accused without mentioning sufficient and reasonable grounds.
6. In the present case it appears that such an enquiry is not made by the Court. The court has not given the reason as to why it formed the opinion that those documents are not relating to the prosecution witness; more particularly, Vijay Kumar. It is true that accused cannot be permitted to delay or protract the trial, however that does not mean that the doors of his defence should be closed and sealed at initial stage of the trial. At least, a fair and reasonable opportunity has to be given to the accused for cross-examining the prosecution witness sufficient to defend himself.
7. Thus, I find that the learned court has not passed a proper, correct and legal order. The order which has been passed by the trial court and which is being assailed by this revision petition is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall give the details of the documents which he wants to call in the cross-examination of complainant Vijay Kumar. After getting such detailed information, the court should direct Vijay Kumar to make a statement whether he is in custody of those documents or whether he is having a control over the production of those documents. Thereafter, the court should summon the complainant Vijay Kumar or person in possession or control of those documents to produce those documents enabling the petitioner-accused to cross-examine him in the trial. Needless to say that accused would be having right to cross-examine the complainant Vijay Kumar in respect of those documents in respect of the questions which are relevant for the trial. Needless to say that it is the right of the trial court to take a proper and reasonable decision about the relevancy of the question or questions which are to be asked in the examination-in-chief or cross-examination.