In a noteworthy ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that trial courts hold the authority to defer cross-examination of multiple witnesses who are expected to testify on the same set of facts.
The case involved a petition by the accused in a murder trial seeking to delay the cross-examination of six eyewitnesses—all family members of the deceased. The trial court had initially denied this request.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, referencing a Supreme Court precedent, emphasized that the law allows deferment not just of individual witnesses but also groups of witnesses when justified by the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the trial court’s outright rejection of a joint deferment for six eyewitnesses was legally unsound.
The defense argued that forcing cross-examination in a piecemeal manner risks revealing their strategy prematurely, giving later prosecution witnesses an unfair chance to adjust their testimonies. The High Court agreed, noting the Supreme Court’s guidelines specify such deferments should be sought as early as possible—ideally before cross-examination begins—to preserve the defense’s interest.
Highlighting the timing, Justice Sekhri pointed out that the petition was filed at the earliest opportunity before the defense’s strategy could be compromised, validating the accused’s concern that without deferment, subsequent witnesses could tailor their statements to undermine the defense case.
Ultimately, the Court sided with the accused, permitting the deferment and reinforcing the trial court’s discretionary power to manage cross-examinations pragmatically in complex cases involving multiple witnesses testifying on similar facts.
