Case at a glance: The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a completely blind accused must be supplied prosecution evidence in accessible form. As reported, it directed that PW-1's examination-in-chief be given in Braille and that other prosecution witnesses' evidence in the re-trial also be supplied in accessible form, under an earlier Division Bench judgment and Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The revisionist is completely blind. A Division Bench judgment of 18 June 2025 allowed his criminal appeal, set aside his conviction and ordered a re-trial, directing the trial court to furnish relevant material in compliance with Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
In the re-trial, the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) closed his opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. He filed a criminal revision against that order.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should the trial court have ensured compliance with the Division Bench directions before closing cross-examination, and must prosecution material be supplied to a blind accused in accessible form?
Participation Needs Understanding
As reported, the Court reasoned that a disabled accused must be able to understand the evidence against him in order to participate effectively and defend himself. Accessible material is not a procedural formality but is linked to the right to a fair trial.
It held the trial court ought to have ensured compliance before closing cross-examination, and directed supply of PW-1's examination-in-chief in Braille and of other witnesses' evidence in accessible form. The source does not say how the order closing cross-examination was finally dealt with, so this post does not state it.
What the Court Actually Held
- PW-1's examination-in-chief must be supplied in Braille.
- Evidence of other prosecution witnesses recorded in the re-trial must also be supplied in accessible form.
- The trial court should have ensured compliance before closing cross-examination.
- The directions rest on the 18 June 2025 judgment and Section 12 of the RPwD Act, 2016.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It links accessibility to the right to a fair trial.
- It gives practical directions on format, not just principle.
- It reminds trial courts to verify compliance with appellate directions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Counsel of Accused With Disabilities
- Ask the court in writing for materials in accessible formats before cross-examination.
- Seek recall or fresh opportunity where access was not provided.
For Prosecution and Courts
- Supply witness statements in the accused's accessible format and record compliance.
Key Takeaways
- Accessible trial material is part of a fair trial.
- Cross-examination should not be closed before access is ensured.
- Braille was ordered for PW-1 and accessible form for others.
Frequently Asked Questions
Supply of PW-1's examination-in-chief in Braille and accessible-form supply of other witnesses' evidence in the re-trial.
Section 12 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the Division Bench judgment of 18 June 2025.
The source does not state how the cross-examination order was finally dealt with, so check the judgment.
Conclusion
The ruling puts content into the promise of accessible justice: a witness's evidence is only useful if the accused can read it.
Practical takeaway: Request accessible formats early and record compliance on the trial file.