Can a trial court shut off cross-examination when an accused who cannot see has not been given the witness’s evidence in a form he can read? The Uttarakhand High Court has said it should not. It has set aside such an order and directed that the accused be given a Braille copy of the witness’s examination-in-chief. It expressed no view on the merits of the prosecution case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun order that closed the opportunity of a completely blind accused to cross-examine the first prosecution witness (PW-1), and has directed the trial court to provide him a Braille copy of her examination-in-chief. The accused is facing re-trial under the POCSO Act. His guilt has not been decided, and he is presumed innocent [Suchit Narang v. State of Uttarakhand].
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Mahra allowed the criminal revision in an order dated October 6, 2026.
How the case reached the High Court
The revisionist is completely blind. He had earlier been convicted by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun. On June 18, 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed his appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a re-trial. It found that the material had not been supplied to him in an accessible format, and directed compliance with Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
After remand, PW-1’s statement was recorded. The accused, through counsel, asked for a Braille copy of her examination-in-chief so that he could understand the evidence and instruct counsel for cross-examination. By an order dated September 9, 2026, the trial court refused, reasoning that PW-1’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been given to him in Braille. It then closed the opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. That order was challenged in the present revision.
Submissions
The revisionist relied on Section 12(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the 2016 Act and on the Division Bench’s earlier directions. The State opposed the revision, contending that the trial court had acted lawfully.
What the High Court held
The Court decided the dispute in light of the June 18, 2025 judgment. It said the purpose of the direction to supply material in an accessible form was to let the revisionist understand the evidence against him and defend himself. Of the supply of such material, it observed:
“Furnishing the material in an accessible form is, therefore, not a mere procedural formality”.
The Court held that the trial court ought to have ensured compliance with the earlier directions before closing the opportunity to cross-examine PW-1.
Directions
The Court set aside the September 9, 2026 order and directed:
“The learned Trial Court is directed to provide to the revisionist a copy of the examination-in-chief of PW-1 in Braille”.
The statements and evidence of the other prosecution witnesses recorded during the re-trial must also be made available to him in an accessible form, in line with the Division Bench judgment and Section 12 of the Act. The Court clarified:
“It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.”
The revision was allowed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.
Why the order matters
Having a Braille copy of an earlier Section 161 statement was not treated as enough: the order ties access to the evidence actually led at trial to the accused’s ability to cross-examine. Cross-examination cannot be closed while compliance with an earlier appellate direction on accessible formats is still pending. The order does not decide anything about the allegations against the accused, which remain untested.
Case Details: Suchit Narang v. State of Uttarakhand | Criminal Revision No. CRLR/747/2026 | Neutral citation: 2026:UHC:9014 | Court: Uttarakhand High Court | Bench: Justice Alok Mahra | Order dated: October 6, 2026 | Impugned order: Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun, September 9, 2026, Special Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2019 | Outcome: Revision allowed; no opinion on merits.
Appearances: Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pritish Arya, for the revisionist; Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A., with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State.
If a child you know needs help or protection, call CHILDLINE on 1098.