Blind accused must receive prosecution testimony in Braille to ensure a fair chance to cross-examine, Uttarakhand High Court rules

The revisionist, who is completely blind, challenged an order closing his opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 in a retrial before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun

His conviction had earlier been set aside by a Division Bench, which directed a retrial and required material to be furnished in an accessible form in compliance with Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

After PW-1’s examination-in-chief was recorded, the revisionist sought a Braille copy to understand the evidence and instruct counsel for cross-examination. The Trial Court declined, reasoning that the revisionist had already received PW-1’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Braille, and closed the opportunity to cross-examine

Whether the Trial Court could close the revisionist’s opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 without first providing the examination-in-chief in an accessible form, consistently with the Division Bench’s remand directions and Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Whether the impugned order closing that opportunity could be sustained

Section 12(4)(a)–(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires the appropriate Government to ensure public documents are accessible, provide necessary equipment for handling documents and evidence in accessible formats, and make facilities available to enable persons with disabilities to give testimony, arguments, or opinions through their preferred language and means of communication

In this case, the Division Bench’s order dated 18.06.2025 directed a retrial with requisite material furnished in compliance with Section 12

Providing case materials in an accessible form is not a mere procedural formality; it is integral to an accused person’s ability to understand the evidence, participate effectively, and receive a fair trial

The Trial Court was required to give effect to the Division Bench’s directions by ensuring that the blind revisionist could understand the evidence against him and effectively instruct counsel.

A Braille copy of PW-1’s Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement did not satisfy that requirement where the revisionist had sought the examination-in-chief recorded at trial in order to prepare for cross-examination.

Closing cross-examination before providing that material in an accessible form was therefore inconsistent with the remand directions and the fair-trial purpose of Section 12.

It directed the Trial Court to provide the examination-in-chief of PW-1 in Braille and to make the statements or evidence of other prosecution witnesses recorded during the retrial available to the revisionist in an accessible form, in compliance with the Division Bench’s order and Section 12 of the Act.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.