3 min readBengaluruFeb 11, 2026 01:15 PM IST
First published on: Feb 11, 2026 at 01:15 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has allowed an application filed by two 22-year-old murder-accused men to postpone the cross-examination of an eyewitness cited by the prosecution against them, so that their defence strategy is not prematurely disclosed, adversely prejudicing their case.
In an order on February 3, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “In the present case, several witnesses are cited as eyewitnesses to the same incident and are closely related and proximally placed, the apprehension of the accused that early cross-examination would lay bare their defence cannot be brushed aside as fanciful. Such apprehension is not only plausible, but judicially recognized.”
The court then deferred the cross-examination of prosecution witness 1 until the completion of the examination-in-chief of the remaining witnesses.
The two men, Ravindra Kumar and Manoj Kumar Sahani, are facing a criminal trial for offences under Indian Penal Code sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder), among others. The prosecution has cited eight eyewitnesses to be examined to prove the case against the accused.
After the first eyewitness was examined, the petitioners filed an application before the trial court seeking to defer the cross-examination of the witness. They claimed that if the cross-examination was allowed, it would lead to a premature disclosure of their defence to other eyewitnesses yet to be examined and that it would prejudice their case. The trial court rejected the application.
Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.
Justice Nagaprasanna said, “The provision is not ornamental, it is purposive. It is a statutory recognition of the principle that fairness of trial is not merely a procedural formality, but a substantive guarantee flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Emphasising that multiple witnesses deposing on the same set of facts and premature exposure of the defence strategy may enable subsequent witnesses to tailor their testimony, thereby imperilling the fairness of the trial.
“A criminal trial is not a contest of endurance, but a quest for truth conducted within the bounds of fairness,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Allowing the application, the court said, “The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on conjectural apprehensions of delay and witness intimidation while altogether overlooking a fundamental question whether denial of deferment would prejudice the defence. The reasoning is cursory, discretion mechanical and the approach antithetical to the settled law governing Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C.”
The Karnataka High Court deferred the cross-examination of prosecution witness 1 until the completion of the examination of the remaining witnesses. (File photo) 
Share
