- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8345 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CPI, SULLIA POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. SRI. KARUNAKARA. D. H. S/O. LATE HONNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT DERAPPAJJANA HOUSE, NALKURU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 141. 2. SMT. PREMA W/O. KARUNAKARA. D. H. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DERAPPAJJANA HOUSE, NALKURU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 141. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 IN S.C.NO.5015/2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, PUTTUR AT D.K DISTRICT AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY ACCUSED NOs1 AND 2 UNDER SEC.231(2) OF CR.PC FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present petition is instituted by the State calling in question the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on an application filed by the accused under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the said application, the accused had prayed that the cross- examination of CW1/PW1 be deferred until the completion of the chief-examination of CW2 to CW5 and CW13, contending that such deferment was necessary in the interest of justice. The prosecution resisted the said prayer by filing detailed objections, contending that the application was devoid of merit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 and that the cross-examination of PW1 should proceed immediately after his examination-in-chief. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the accused, was persuaded to accept the plea for deferment. The Court observed that PW1, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, is only a hearsay witness, whereas CW2 to CW5 and CW13 are, according to the prosecution, the material witnesses who had allegedly last seen the deceased in the company of the accused shortly before her death. On this reasoning, the Sessions Court allowed the application and directed that the cross-examination of PW1 shall stand deferred until the completion of the chief-examination of CW2 to CW5 and CW13. Aggrieved by this order, the State has preferred the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State and carefully perused the material on record, including the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 4. A brief reference to the factual matrix is apposite. The prosecution case, in substance, is that CW2 to CW4 are close relatives of the deceased, while CW5 and CW13 are alleged to be the eyewitnesses who last saw the deceased in the company of the accused at the relevant time. PW1, the complainant and husband of the deceased, lodged the first information based on what was stated to him by the above witnesses. The accused, entertaining an apprehension that an immediate and detailed cross-examination of PW1 may reveal the line of defence and thereby alert CW2 to CW5 and CW13, sought deferment of PW1’s cross-examination until after the chief-examination of the said material witnesses. 5. Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests discretion in the trial Judge to defer the cross-examination of any witness, if sufficient cause is shown. Such discretion, however, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be exercised sparingly on the basis of cogent reasons placed before the Court. The guiding principle is to ensure a fair trial, balancing the rights of the prosecution and the defence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 6. In the case at hand, CW5 and CW13 are projected by the prosecution as the witnesses who last saw the deceased alive in the company of the accused. The defence has expressed a legitimate apprehension that, if PW1 — who admittedly derived his knowledge from these witnesses — is subjected to extensive cross-examination before their evidence is recorded, it may furnish clues to the prosecution witnesses and thereby prejudice the defence On a careful analysis of the rival contentions and the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, this Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. The reasoning that PW1 is essentially a hearsay witness, whereas CW2 to CW5 and CW13 are principal witnesses whose testimony is likely to have a direct bearing on the prosecution case, is sound and consistent with the object underlying Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge has judiciously exercised the discretion conferred by the statute and has safeguarded the interests of both sides by merely postponing the cross-examination of PW1 rather than curtailing it. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36447 CRL.P No. 8345 of 2025 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order is in consonance with the settled principles of law and does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional or inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK