Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the defence has the right to confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents, including photographs and site plans, during cross-examination if they help test the veracity of the witness’s testimony or the prosecution’s case. The Court allowed the accused’s petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the trial court’s refusal to allow such confrontation.
Justice G. Girish observed that “the object of cross-examination is to impeach the accuracy, credibility, and general value of the witness’s evidence”, emphasizing that denying the defence an opportunity to confront the witness with relevant evidence would defeat the purpose of fair trial. The Court directed the trial judge to permit the defence to confront PW2 (a landlord witness) with both the photograph of the alleged crime scene and the official site plan.
Facts
The accused faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating the survivor. The alleged sexual acts took place in a portion of a building leased by PW2 to the accused for running a stitching unit.
During PW2’s cross-examination, the defence sought to confront him with a photograph of the interior of the said building and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer — both relevant to establishing whether the alleged act could physically or circumstantially have occurred at the said place. The trial court, however, rejected these attempts on the ground that the documents were neither prepared by PW2 nor fell within the scope of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court challenging this refusal.
Issues
- Whether the defence counsel is entitled to confront a prosecution witness with documents such as photographs or site plans not prepared by the witness.
- Whether such confrontation falls within the permissible limits of cross-examination under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defence’s right to cross-examine on the basis of relevance and evidentiary value.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the documents sought to be shown — the photograph and the site plan — were relevant to determine the possibility and setting of the alleged offence, thereby going to the root of the prosecution’s case. He contended that the trial court’s refusal to permit such confrontation violated his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence maintained that under Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cross-examination may extend beyond matters stated in the examination-in-chief, provided it concerns relevant facts. Moreover, the “state of things” under which the offence occurred — such as the physical setting of the alleged place — is a relevant fact under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. The petitioner thus asserted that showing the photograph and site plan was necessary to “fix the time and place” of the alleged incident and to rebut the prosecution’s narrative.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution supported the trial court’s reasoning, arguing that the photograph and site plan were inadmissible at that stage as they were not prepared or authenticated by the witness being cross-examined. It further submitted that allowing such confrontation could invite speculative questioning beyond the purview of the witness’s knowledge, potentially leading to irrelevant or prejudicial material entering the record.
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Criminal Trials Guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies, In re [(2021) 10 SCC 598], which cautioned against admitting irrelevant or speculative evidence during cross-examination, noting that such practices clutter the record and may prejudice the trial.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Girish began by analyzing the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced the Indian Evidence Act. He noted that under Section 143(2) BSA (formerly Section 138 Evidence Act), cross-examination need not be confined to matters raised in examination-in-chief, as long as it pertains to relevant facts.
He emphasized that Section 5 (formerly Section 7 Evidence Act) recognizes as relevant the “state of things” or circumstances under which an event occurred — including the location and environment of an alleged offence. Similarly, Section 7 (formerly Section 9) makes facts necessary to “introduce a fact in issue” or fix time and place as relevant evidence.
Thus, a photograph depicting the interior of the alleged scene of occurrence and an official site plan were both held to be relevant facts, admissible for the limited purpose of cross-examination. The Court underlined that such evidence could test whether the physical setting rendered the prosecution’s allegation improbable.
Precedent Analysis
- Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1] – The Court discussed this case, where the Supreme Court allowed marking objected documents tentatively, to be decided at judgment stage.
- Criminal Trials Guidelines, In re [(2021) 10 SCC 598] – A three-judge Bench later modified Bipin Panchal, holding that trial courts must decide admissibility then and there, to prevent cluttering the record with irrelevant details.
- Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024 KHC 6256] – The Court relied on this judgment for the principle that the object of cross-examination is to impeach accuracy, credibility, and general value of evidence and to expose discrepancies or suppressed facts.
By synthesizing these precedents, Justice Girish held that the trial court should decide on admissibility contemporaneously, but it must not prevent relevant confrontation that directly affects the fact in issue.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the trial judge’s interpretation of Section 145 (Evidence Act) was too narrow. The Court clarified that showing a photograph or plan merely to identify whether it represents the place in question does not amount to using it for contradiction; it is part of relevant contextual questioning permitted under Sections 5 and 7 of the BSA.
Justice Girish explained that the trial court must balance the need to prevent irrelevant questioning with the accused’s right to confront evidence against him. He ruled that if the witness affirms that the photograph or plan pertains to the premises leased to the accused, the defence may further question him and seek to mark the document following due procedure. Conversely, if the witness denies or expresses ignorance, no further questioning on that document may be pursued.
In doing so, the Court reconciled the Criminal Trials Guidelines with the broader principle of fair trial and relevancy, reaffirming that cross-examination cannot be reduced to a ritual or limited by procedural rigidity.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court’s order. It directed the Additional Sessions Judge to:
- Permit the defence to confront PW2 with the photograph of the building’s interior and ask if it depicts the leased portion.
- Permit similar confrontation using the site plan prepared by the Village Officer.
- Allow further questions and marking of the document only if the witness confirms relevance.
- Prohibit further questioning if the witness denies knowledge or authenticity.
The judgment reaffirmed that the essence of cross-examination lies in testing truth through confrontation, not through procedural exclusion.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the rights of the accused to a fair and effective cross-examination under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It underscores that relevant documentary evidence — even if not created by the witness — can be used to verify or challenge testimony, provided the purpose is identification, not contradiction.
The ruling also harmonizes the Criminal Trials Guidelines with practical fairness, guiding trial courts to allow meaningful confrontation while filtering out irrelevant material. It will serve as a crucial precedent in trials under the new BSA framework, especially in sexual offence cases where the scene of occurrence is central to the truth.
FAQs
1. What did the Kerala High Court decide in this case?
The Court held that the defence can confront prosecution witnesses with relevant documents like photographs or site plans during cross-examination if such documents help determine facts related to the alleged offence.
2. Which Supreme Court precedents guided the ruling?
The Court referred to Bipin Shantilal Panchal (2001), Criminal Trials Guidelines (2021), and Anees v. State (2024) to clarify when and how objections and admissibility in cross-examination should be handled.
3. Why is this judgment important under the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
It clarifies the broad scope of cross-examination under Sections 5, 7, and 143(2) of the BSA, 2023, ensuring fair trial rights and judicial consistency under India’s new evidentiary regime.
