A material witness’s cross-examination should not be closed absent deliberate or persistent abuse.

The petitioner/accused, facing trial in Case No. SC/12/2026 before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Betul, arising from FIR No. 1093/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Betul, challenged the order dated 24 June 2026 closing his right to cross-examine the mother of the prosecutrix.

On 24 June 2026, the witness’s examination-in-chief was recorded, after which the defence sought an adjournment for cross-examination. The application was rejected and the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the witness was closed.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that denial of cross-examination caused serious prejudice and that there had been no deliberate or repeated delay by the defence.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO proceedings and submitting that repeated adjournments could not be claimed as of right.

Whether the trial Court was justified in closing the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the mother of the prosecutrix after rejecting the application for adjournment on the date of her examination-in-chief.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to grant one final opportunity for cross-examination, while safeguarding the requirement of expeditious trial under the POCSO Act.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

Cross-examination is an essential safeguard for testing the truthfulness and reliability of prosecution evidence and is an integral component of a fair criminal trial.

Although a trial Court may prevent unnecessary adjournments, particularly in proceedings under the POCSO Act requiring expeditious disposal, closure of the right to cross-examine a material prosecution witness is a serious measure and ordinarily requires circumstances demonstrating deliberate, repeated or persistent abuse of the process by the accused.

The High Court found that the witness was the mother of the prosecutrix and therefore a material prosecution witness whose cross-examination could be significant to the defence.

The petitioner challenged the closure order immediately, on the same date on which the adjournment application was rejected, and the record did not disclose any repeated or deliberate attempt to avoid cross-examination.

Applying the principle that cross-examination forms part of a fair trial, the Court held that denial of a single effective opportunity was likely to cause substantial prejudice.

At the same time, it balanced this consideration against the need for expeditious POCSO proceedings by limiting the relief to one effective and final opportunity and directing that no unnecessary adjournment be sought.

The order dated 24 June 2026 was set aside to the extent that it closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the mother of the prosecutrix.

The trial Court was directed to provide the petitioner one effective and final opportunity to conduct the cross-examination on the date fixed by it.

The petitioner was required to complete the cross-examination on that date without seeking unnecessary adjournment, after which the trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law and endeavour to conclude the POCSO proceedings expeditiously.