The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the deferment of cross-examination for related witnesses testifying on the same set of facts is not merely permissible but may be essential to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural flexibility must serve substantive justice, particularly when disclosure of defence strategy could compromise the integrity of evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, accused under Sections 103, 109(1), 296, 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sought to defer the cross-examination of four prosecution witnesses: Shivnarayan Malviya, Shyam Malviya, Sarita Malviya, and Jagdish Dangi. These witnesses are closely related and are expected to testify on the same incident and factual matrix. The petitioner argued that conducting cross-examinations sequentially, after all examination-in-chief is complete, would prevent premature disclosure of the defence strategy.
Procedural History
- 2025: Special Case No. SCATR 238/2025 initiated against the petitioner
- January 2026: Examination-in-chief of PW1, PW2, and PW3 completed; cross-examination deferred
- February 2026: Petitioner filed application under Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023 seeking simultaneous cross-examination of all four witnesses
- March 2026: Trial Court rejected the application solely on grounds of "delay", without examining the substantive prejudice
- March 2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the setting aside of the impugned order and a direction to the trial court to conduct the cross-examinations of all four witnesses in sequence, ensuring the defence strategy remains undisclosed until all prosecution witnesses have testified.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023 - the successor to Section 231(2) of CrPC - permits deferment of cross-examination of multiple related witnesses testifying on the same facts, and whether the trial court’s rejection of such an application on grounds of delay alone constitutes a manifest error.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on State of Kerala v. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297 and Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to argue that deferment is justified when witnesses are interrelated and testify on identical facts. The petitioner emphasized that simultaneous cross-examination prevents the prosecution from tailoring subsequent testimony to counter the defence’s emerging strategy. The application was timely, filed before the trial progressed beyond examination-in-chief, and the prejudice to the accused was evident.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the application was filed belatedly and that no concrete prejudice was demonstrated. It argued that the trial court was entitled to reject the request to avoid unnecessary delays and that the mere relationship between witnesses does not justify deferment. The State also cited the need for expeditious trials under Section 309(1) of BNSS.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the jurisprudence under Section 231(2) of CrPC, now mirrored in Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023, and held that the trial court’s reasoning was legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the discretion under this provision must be exercised to prevent prejudice, not to enforce rigid timelines.
"The circumstances in which the High Courts have approved the exercise of discretion to defer cross-examination... are: (i) Where witnesses were related to each other, and were supposed to depose on the same subject-matter and facts; (ii) Where witnesses were supposed to depose about the same set of facts."
The Court noted that the three witnesses already examined - Shivnarayan, Shyam, and Sarita Malviya - are family members testifying on the same incident. Their testimony overlaps substantially. Allowing their cross-examination to proceed individually would expose the defence’s line of questioning to the fourth witness, Jagdish Dangi, before he testifies, thereby enabling him to tailor his evidence. This would violate the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further rejected the trial court’s reliance on "delay" as a standalone ground, observing that delay alone cannot override the substantive right to a fair trial. The Court cited Vijay Kumar to affirm that trial courts must prepare detailed calendars and accommodate legitimate requests for procedural coordination. The absence of any complaint of witness intimidation or threat did not negate the risk of strategic disclosure.
The Court laid down clear guidelines: when witnesses are related and testify on the same facts, deferment of cross-examination must be considered unless the accused fails to demonstrate a plausible risk of prejudice. The trial court’s failure to engage with this threshold rendered its order illegal.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the cross-examinations of all four prosecution witnesses be conducted in sequence, preferably on the same day or consecutive days. The Court emphasized that the accused’s right to protect defence strategy outweighs procedural convenience when the factual matrix is intertwined.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cross-Examination Must Be Coordinated for Related Witnesses
- Practitioners must file applications under Section 254(3) BNSS early, preferably during case calendar preparation
- When multiple witnesses are related and testify on the same facts, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show why simultaneous cross-examination would prejudice the trial
- Trial courts must record specific reasons for denial, not merely cite "delay" or "lack of specificity"
Defence Strategy Protection Is a Valid Ground for Deferment
- The mere existence of familial or factual overlap between witnesses is sufficient to trigger judicial discretion
- No need to prove actual tampering - risk of strategic disclosure is enough
- Courts must treat this as a procedural safeguard, not a tactical delay
Trial Calendars Must Be Dynamic, Not Rigid
- Case calendars must anticipate potential deferments and allocate time accordingly
- Judges must specify proximate dates for deferred cross-examinations to prevent indefinite adjournments
- Failure to follow the calendar without compelling reason may invite writ intervention
