Main Article Content
Abstract
Two different versions of the same incident resulting into two criminal cases are described as “case and counter case” by some High Courts or just “cross cases” by some others. Incidences of Cross cases are very common in trial courts. Almost in every serious criminal case we find a cross version by the Defence which requires a separate trial on its own right. Sometimes the cross version represents the truth, in most cases they are false and raised just to impede speedy trial and to defeat the prosecution and secure acquittal by making the trial complicated and confusing. This may be criticized on the ground that the established principles of criminal jurisprudence are being given a goby inasmuch as evidence recorded in one case is being used in another case as also the rule of proof in criminal cases is not being strictly followed. But a closer look would reveal that the criticism has no force. If parties are different and the evidence is not being recorded in the presence of the other party against whom it is going to be used then one can legitimately say that such type of evidence should not be used. But if the rival parties have different versions and in presence of both the parties evidence is being recorded, then perhaps there cannot be any grievance on this count. It may also be argued that only the procedure prescribed by the apex court and various High Courts can guarantee compliance with the fundamental norms of a fair criminal trial including the protection given to the accused in Article 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.