Is Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala Correctly Decided? Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior Production?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

The Kerala High Court held in Anu C.R v. State of Kerala, 2025:KER:76538  (G. Girish, J.), 16 October, 2025, as under:

  • “i)​ The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to permit the counsel for the accused to confront PW2 by showing the photograph of the interior of the building which he had leased out to the accused (Annexure-A3) and to ask whether it is the photograph of the interior portion of the building which he had leased out to the accused.
  • ii)​ If the witness gives an affirmative answer to the above question, the defence counsel shall be permitted to ask further questions related to it, with due regard to its relevancy, and to get the said document marked as an exhibit on the part of the accused, subject to production of that document immediately thereafter, following the formalities prescribed in that regard.
  • iii)​ If the witness denied the above suggestion, or says that he is not able to say anything on the basis of the above document, the counsel for the accused need not be permitted to proceed with further questions on that document.
  • iv)​ The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to permit the counsel for the defence to confront PW2 by showing the site plan prepared by the Village Officer and ask whether the aforesaid document was the plan of the building which he had rented out to the accused.
  • v)​ If the witness gives an affirmative answer to the above question, then the defence counsel should be permitted to ask further questions on that site plan, with due regard to its relevancy, and also to admit the document as an exhibit of the prosecution, marked at the instance of the accused.
  • vi)​ If the witness denies the suggestion, or says that he is not able to state anything about it, then the defence counsel need not be permitted to ask further questions on that document to that witness.”

Objections Raised Against Marking of Photograph and Site Plan

The objections raised against the marking of the photograph and site plan were the following:

  • “The aforesaid photograph is not pertaining to the witness, or made by the witness, and it is not falling within the purview of Section 145 of the Evidence Act”.
  • “The site plan prepared by the Village Officer, which formed part of the prosecution records, was also refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge stating the reason that the aforesaid site plan is not prepared by that witness.”

Law Relied on to Take View that the Sessions Judge Went Wrong

The Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anees v. State Government of NCT (DY Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.), AIR 2024 SC 2297; 2024-6 SCR 164; 2024 KHC 6256, held as under:

  • “The object of the cross – examination is to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given in – chief; to sift the facts already stated by the witness; to detect and expose the discrepancy or to elicit the suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross – examining party.”

Legal Principles Lend Support to the Kerala High Court View

The following legal principles lend support to the view taken by the Kerala High Court:

1. Section 148 BSA (Section 145 Evidence Act)

  • Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Sec. 145 Evidence Act) enables to contradict witnesses with his previous statements:
    • • “Without such writing being shown to him”.
  • Here the materials are “shown” and asked.

2. Section 141  BSA [Section 136  Evidence Act]

  • Section 141(2) and (3) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Sec. 136 (2) and (3) Evidence Act] reads as under:
    • “(2) If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.
    • (3) If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.”

If the court permitted the cross examiner to proceed (without raising objection) it can be presumed that the the party has ‘undertaken’ to give proof of such fact, “and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking”.

Read also:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free 

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Revenue Records, Mutation

Adverse Possession

Land LawsTransfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Leave a Comment