Accused has an indefeasible right to use relevant CCTV footage for cross-examination despite time-consuming nature.

The petitioner is facing trial for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Sessions Case No. 44/2021).

During the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer (Prosecution Witness No. 32), the Special Public Prosecutor was permitted to show CCTV footage from a hard disk (Exhibit-423) to the witness.

When the petitioner’s counsel requested to show relevant parts of the same footage to the witness during cross-examination to build the defense, the Trial Court (5th Additional District and Sessions Court, Kuchchh at Bhuj) rejected the request via order dated 03.03.2025.

The Trial Court reasoned that re-viewing the footage was "time-consuming" and suggested it would only grant permission if ordered by a higher court.

The petitioner challenged this order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in denying the defense the right to present electronic evidence (CCTV footage) to a witness during cross-examination on the grounds of judicial efficiency/time.

2. Whether the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness regarding evidence relied upon by the prosecution violates the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court primarily applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

It relied on the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence regarding the "indefeasible right" of an accused to cross-examine witnesses effectively to mount a defense.

The court implicitly observed that procedural convenience cannot override the substantive right to defend oneself against prosecution evidence, especially when such evidence (CCTV footage) was utilized by the prosecution during examination-in-chief.

The High Court observed that the prosecution had already established the relevance of the CCTV footage by showing it to the witness during the examination-in-chief.

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner possesses a legitimate right to question the witness on the same material to elicit facts favorable to the defense.

The Court rejected the Trial Court's justification that the process was "time-consuming," ruling that denying the use of evidence already on record constitutes a denial of the right to defend.

The Court noted that the petitioner did not seek to play the entire footage but only relevant portions, and the counsel provided an assurance that the exercise would be completed within a single day, thereby addressing concerns regarding trial delay.

The Court held that the petitioner must be permitted to show relevant parts of the CCTV footage (Exhibit-423) to Witness No. 32 during cross-examination.

The Court directed the Trial Court to fix a date for this exercise and ordered that the entire cross-examination regarding the footage must be concluded within one day.