The prosecution case was largely based on the statement of an eye-witness – a lady head constable who was also injured in the incident.
While analysing the record, the Court found that she had not been immediately cross-examined after the examination-in-chief.
It was in this context the top court made observations against delaying cross-examination of witnesses.
“We only wanted to record this cautionary note to make our point that this practice is not a healthy practice and the Courts should be slow in deferring these matters. The mandate of Section 231 of Cr.PC and the law laid down on the subject referred above must be followed in its letter and spirit,” the bench said.
However, the Court also noted that deferment in cross examination of the eye-witness had not affected the trial.
The witness had remained consistent, it said.
Source: Barandbench
