Legal Provisions of Section 231 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Evidence for prosecution:
The prosecution must produce all the evidence essential to the unfolding of the prosecution case. It is not necessary that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material or it is known that he has been won over or terrorized.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Only material witnesses considered necessary for unfolding the prosecution case need be produced for examination before the Court. Where a witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution only that part of his Evidence which is in conformity with the other evidence may be relied upon.
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief then, if the adverse party so desires, they may be cross-examined and thereafter, if the party calling them so desires, they may be reexamined. The trial Judge may, in his discretion permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination.
Image Source : luna.edu
Where the Court finds that the prosecution has not examined witnesses for reasons not tenable or proper, the Court would be justified in drawing an inference adverse to the prosecution.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The evidence under this section is ordinarily taken down in the narrative form but the presiding judge may, in his discretion, take down or cause to be taken down any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer as laid down in Section 276 (2) of Cr.P.C. After the evidence of each witness is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused if he is present or in the presence of his defence counsel.
In Lalu Mam v. State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court has held, “It is true that Section 231 (2) gives a discretion to permit the cross-examination of any witnesses to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined, but that does not mean in any way that the accused has a right to ask for deferring the cross- examination in a blanket way on the plea that otherwise the prosecution may take a chance of filling up the lacuna in its case that may be disclosed in cross-examination of such witnesses.