Topic
Allahabad High Court rules that recalling witnesses under Section 311 CrPC after charge framing is impermissible unless their evidence is indispensable to justice. The judgment underscores the binding nature of procedural waivers and the statutory structure of criminal trials, impacting complainants seeking late witness examinations.
When medical reports on injury severity diverge, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that courts can direct a Medical Board to determine if an injury qualifies as 'dangerous to life' under Section 307 IPC - even if visible marks have healed. This sets a critical precedent for ensuring fair trial standards in cases where forensic ambiguity could otherwise lead to wrongful escalation or dilution of charges.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that deferral of cross-examination under Section 231(2) CrPC cannot be granted as a matter of routine and must be supported by specific reasons and a timely application. The court emphasized that premature disclosure of defence strategy could prejudice the accused, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards in criminal trials.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that cross-examination of related witnesses testifying on identical facts may be deferred together under Section 231(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent premature disclosure of defence strategy. The ruling clarifies that trial courts must balance fairness with efficiency, ensuring accused rights are not prejudiced by sequential cross-examination of closely connected witnesses.