THAKARDA VALAJI BHAVANJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 13 persons were tried in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1963 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Mehsana for having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing simple and grievous hurts to the assailants of one Fulaji Bhawanji and also to those who came to their rescue. They were charged with having committed various offences in prosecution of that common object. Three out of them were acquitted. The rest were convicted of having committed various offences and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for varying periods extending up to five years and also to pay fines. Out of these 10 convicted persons original accused Nos. 1 2 4 5 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1964 in this Court against their conviction and original accused Nos. 3 6 7 8 12 and 13 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1964 Both the appeals are dealt with together in this judgment. .... .... .... ....

(2.) There can be no doubt that the Court has both the discretion and the authority to control cross-examination of a witness. Not only that but the Court has a duty to interfere and keep the cross-examination within legitimate bound. Where the right of cross-examination is abused by mere repetition of questions to the same witness or irrelevant questions are asked the Court has certainly the discretion and also the power to put a stop to such abuse of that right. But it is also to be kept in mind by every Court that cross-examination is one of the most important and effective right given by law to extract the truth and some latitude has to be given to the cross-examining advocate. It would not be just or proper to exercise the right to curtail cross-examination if it has the effect of prejudicing the case of the party on whose behalf that right is exercised. It is all the more so in a criminal case where the accused in likely to be so prejudiced.

(3.) Mr. Thakore the learned advocate of the appellants urged that as the pursis shows the cross-examination was actually. cut short by the Court while it was in progress and many questions were disallowed wrongly before the closure was applied. The pursis filed on behalf of the appellant does not disclose the questions disallowed nor the grounds on which further cross-examination was disallowed but the learned Judge has fairly put down in his order all the grounds and facts on which he exercised his right to stop further cross-examination. It appears from the order that the learned Judge purported to put a stop to the cross-examination because in his view the questions placed were irrelevant and unnecessary. The grounds as to why in his view the questions were unnecessary and irrelevant are that (1) the witness was in the hands of the learned advocate Mr. Vyas for cross-examination for more than about 12 hours. Mr. Vyas was repeating the same questions and he was informed that it was not necessary to repeat. (2) Certain questions were not necessary because the complainant who was examined and cross-examined on the previous day had given some admissions. Mr. Vyas perhaps had not gone through the evidence of the complainant already recorded. His attention was invited often to the fact that certain questions were not necessary because what he wanted to establish through those questions had already been established in the evidence of the complainant. Inspite of that he had continued to put questions which were not only irrelevant but also not necessary. (3) After giving sufficient warnings for about 10 minutes to the learned advocate before the cross-examination was closed it was brought to an end. There were 10 injured persons and they were all to depose as eye-witnesses. Only relevant and necessary questions can be allowed. It was in the interest of justice and in order to avoid delay that the unnecessary cross-examination was checked.