Summary
The Court upheld concurrent convictions arising from a fatal group assault. Noticing prolonged adjournments of a star witness’s cross-examination and witnesses turning hostile, it also issued directions for continuous trial, early examination of eyewitnesses and recording their statements before a Magistrate.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent convictions warranted interference under Article 136.
- What measures should prevent delay in examining eyewitnesses and the risk of their being won over.
Held
- No infirmity was found in the concurrent findings sustaining the convictions; interference under Article 136 was unwarranted. (¶ 3)
- Trial courts must comply with Section 309 CrPC. The cited authorities emphasise continuous examination of witnesses in attendance and require special reasons for departures; counsel’s convenience does not justify routine adjournment. Prolonged deferral of cross-examination exposes witnesses to pressure. (¶ 4–11)
- Eyewitness examination should occur as early as possible. During investigation, eyewitness statements should invariably be recorded under Section 164 CrPC in accordance with the prescribed procedure. High Courts may issue appropriate directions to trial courts. (¶ 12–15)
Result
Appeals dismissed. Directions issued for Section 309 compliance, early eyewitness examination and recording eyewitness statements under Section 164; copies ordered to High Court Registrars General for communication to presiding officers.