Early Times Report
Jammu, May 19: In a much publicized Greater Kailash Murder case in which Nine accused including retired IPS Officer was allegedly involved, accused have filed a petition before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside order dated 15.04.2025, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, [“the trial court”] in case „UT of J&K v. Parshotam Singh and others’ under Sections 120B, 447, 427, 302, 307, 506, 147 and 201 IPC, in terms whereof, their plea for deferring cross examination of six eye-witnesses, came to be declined.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court after hearing Adv Sakal Bhushan with Adv Rahul Sharma for the petitioners whereas Special PP RK Kotwal for the accused, allowed the petition and set-aside the impugned order passed by Trial Court and ordered that as a consequence, the application filed by the petitioners for deferring cross examination of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 is allowed and their cross examination shall remain deferred until all of them are examined in chief.
While allowing the petition, Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that true it is, that prosecution witnesses are expected to testify in their chief examination on the lines of their statements recorded, during investigation, under Sections 161 or 164 Cr.P.C., and any improvement or deviation by them from said statements, may render their depositions unworthy of credence. However, it is the apprehension of improvisation by the prosecution witnesses in their cross examinations to circumvent the defence strategy which is to be taken into consideration by the Court at the time cross examination of a witness or set of witnesses is sought to be deferred and if that apprehension is well founded, it can hamper the prospects of a fair trial, a basic postulate of criminal jurisprudence. The circumstances narrated by the petitioners, in the present case, justified the exercise of discretion by the Court, in terms of sub section 3 of Section 254 BNSS. (JNF) |
