CHANDRAKANT NARAYAN CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE were distressed to note in the present case that the lower Court has not effectively controlled the cross-examination and allowed the defence to indulge in pointless and grilling cross-examination. Numberless contradictions-mostly in the form of omissions flood the record. The learned judge gives the impression of having completely abdicated his responsibility under the Explanation to section 162 Cri.P.C., to determine whether a particular omission was material enough to amount to a contradiction. This Explanation in express terms provides that an omission amounts to a contradiction, only, and only, if the same appears to the Court significant and otherwise relevant, having regard to the context in which it occurs and further the question whether or not any omission amounts to a contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact. Obviously it is the duty and obligation of the Court to decide this question, by applying the above test. The ambivalence exhibited by quite a few Judges to do their plain duty in this regard, may be out of a false exaggerated anxiety to be more than fair to the defence. There can be no quarrel with the basic proposition that the Court has to be fair to the defence. However, this does not mean that in their anxiety to be fair, trial Courts should abdicate their plain duty cast on them by law and be helpless spectators to an attempt by the defence to distort the course of justice. WE would like to impress upon the trial Judges to realise the importance and seriousness of their true role and responsibility under the provisions of the Explanation to section 162 Cri.P.C., and discharge their duty effectively-no-doubt with all fairness, but also with requisite fairness, wherever necessary. In the present case, the exaggerating cross-examination, often without any direction or legitimate purpose, does leave an uneasy impression on the mind of the Reader that the cross-examiner had deliberately created artificial situations by introducing some irrelevant or insignificant stuff for the first time in the cross-examination itself and then turning round to capitalise on the simulated contradictions/omissions. He appreciate that at times there may be nothing remiss in adopting such an expedient. However if in a particular case, the defence indulges in indiscriminate use of such tactics, the plain duty of the trial Court is to intervents, and intervene effectively, in order to check the distortions. Appeal dismissed.