Accused Cannot Defer Cross-Examination By Merely Claiming Defence Strategy Will Be Disclosed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Jurisdiction of the criminal court to exercise the discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 254(3) of BNSS... can be invoked... only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, but not in routine manner." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling , held that an accused cannot seek deferment of a witness's cross-examination based on a mere "bald assertion" that their defence strategy would be prematurely disclosed.

A bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed that the discretionary power to defer cross-examination under Section 231(2) of the CrPC (now Section 254(3) of the BNSS) must only be exercised in very exceptional cases and upon assigning specific, compelling reasons.

The petitioner is facing trial for various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution's case primarily relies on the testimonies of four related witnesses, including the prosecutrix. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging a Special Judge's order that dismissed his application seeking to defer the cross-examination of these four witnesses until all their chief examinations were completely recorded.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused could claim deferment of cross-examination of related prosecution witnesses solely to prevent the alleged premature disclosure of their defence strategy. The court was also called upon to determine the appropriate stage at which an application under Section 231(2) of the CrPC / Section 254(3) of the BNSS should be filed by the defence.

Timing of the Deferment Application

The court first addressed the procedural timing for seeking a deferment in criminal trials. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's comprehensive guidelines in State of Kerala v. Rasheed, the bench emphasised that any request to defer cross-examination must be made at the earliest possible stage, ideally before the trial calendar is fixed. The court noted from the trial record that the petitioner had filed the application only after the chief examination of the main prosecutrix had already been completed, rendering the request highly belated and procedurally flawed.

"Prayer for invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court to exercise the discretion for deferment of cross-examination of particular witness(es) in terms of Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C. should be made preferably before the preparation of the trial programme/case-calendar."

Requirement of Specific Reasons Over Bald Assertions

Delving into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the court firmly rejected the argument that immediate cross-examination would enable the prosecution to fill lacunae in its case. The bench clarified that while protecting an accused's defence strategy is a valid concern in criminal jurisprudence, it cannot be used as a blanket excuse to delay trials. The court observed that the petitioner had failed to assign any specific or substantial reason to justify the deferral, relying entirely on a generic and unsupported apprehension of prejudice.

"Deferment of cross-examination... is sought on the premise that if cross-examination of the four witnesses is not deferred, the defence of the petitioner may be disclosed prematurely... however, apparently no reason has been assigned in the application justifying the prayer of deferment."

Long Deferments Are Anathema to Fair Trial

The High Court drew attention to the Supreme Court's strict stance against routine adjournments in criminal trials, specifically citing the landmark judgments in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Surender Singh v. State (NCT) of Delhi. The bench underscored the absolute imperative that cross-examination should ideally be concluded on the very same day the examination-in-chief is recorded, or at the latest, on the following day. It reiterated that prolonged adjournments for cross-examination inherently compromise the fairness of the trial process, affect witness memory, and can endanger witness safety.

"As far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross-examine the witness the same day or the following day. Only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross-examination should be deferred."

Principles for Exercising Discretion Under BNSS and CrPC

Synthesising the established legal position, the court laid down clear parameters for invoking Section 231(2) of the CrPC, which strictly corresponds to Section 254(3) of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The bench clarified that this discretionary power is not a matter of right for the accused and cannot be demanded mechanically. It must be rooted in sufficient, recorded reasons demonstrating real prejudice, and trial courts must only invoke this provision in the rarest and most exceptional of circumstances to ensure the trial proceeds day-to-day.

"Jurisdiction of the criminal court to exercise the discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked... only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, but not in routine manner."

Finding no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the trial court's decision, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. The ruling firmly reinforces the strict judicial mandate against delaying trial proceedings under the garb of protecting defence strategies, ensuring that witness testimonies in sensitive matters under the SC/ST Act and the BNS are recorded without unwarranted interruptions.

Date of Decision: 31 March 2026