Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (September 18) indicated the procedure by which Kannada Actor Darshan's shall be physically produced during the Renukaswamy murder trial, directing that the prosecution shall examine material witnesses and that the actor can be physically produced during the cross-examination of such witnesses. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366]

The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan through his wife Vijaya Lakhsmi, challenging a trial court order that had refused his request for physical production during trial.

“…As undertaken by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same matter, the prosecution must examine 60 witnesses, which shall include the seven material witnesses submitted by the petitioner as per the list dated 16.09.2026 and the list dated 18.09.2026, except CW 228, CW 232, and CW 233…When once the seven witnesses mentioned in the list dated 16.09.2026 and CW 168 in the list dated 18.08.2026 are examined in chief, all those witnesses shall be bound over, and two or three consecutive dates may be fixed by the trial judge in consultation with the counsel for the accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and all those witnesses may be cross-examined on those dates…
The trial court judge is also permitted to extend a day or more if the need arises for cross-examination and to conclude the trial…On those days wherein cross-examination of material witnesses is conducted, the physical presence of the petitioner [Darshan] and other accused may be ensured with necessary security arrangements by respondent No. 3[Chief Superintendent, Central Prison]…The trial court judge may also permit the cross-examination of the material witnesses to be conducted, if need be, by in-camera proceedings…”, the court noted in the order while disposing the plea.

For context, the petitioner had filed two memos with separate witness lists, one dated September 16 referring to seven witnesses, and another memo on September 18 listing four material witnesses including a doctor.

Today, Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar, representing the State, submitted that he had no objection to examine all material witnesses referred to in the list of the petitioner, and any other witnesses the prosecution deemed fit.

The Chief Superintendent of Police, Parappana Agrahara Jail also submitted that the guidelines issued by the Court would be adhered to on the days when material witnesses are cross-examined.

The Court also clarified that physical presence of accused such as Darshan would not be allowed during chief examination.

During the hearing, the court, on the role of counsel for the accused during cross examination orally said, 

“…He (the counsel) is the master in his case. When he wants to cross-examine, if you examine all these people in chief, his cross depends on getting some instructions from the concerned accused which he needs to take then and there. He may need to go to the accused and talk to him and get some instructions. That adjustment can always be made when the date of cross is fixed…”.

The Court also issued a strong warning against seeking physical production of accused as a matter of right hereafter in its order:

“…The discussion made in the above case resulting in disposing of the petition shall not be treated as a precedent, as the present directions are issued taking note of the sensitivity and peculiarity of the case at hand.”

Before disposing of the matter, the court made it clear that once the dates are fixed for witnesses to appear for cross-examination, it shall be conducted positively without seeking adjournments.

Background

To recap, earlier, a few accused including Darshan and Nagaraju filed an application under Section 309 read with Section 273 CrPC, seeking physical production before the trial court. The trial court, had on August 17 rejected the applications and directed that the accused may be permitted to appear through video conferencing.

Before the trial court, the accused Darshan had argued that the VC facility was plagued by frequent interruptions and connectivity problems.

It was also argued that the voluminous case records required extensive meetings with the lawyers representing the actor, and the right to fair trial includes continuous and meaningful consultation between accused and counsel during trial

It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution has around 272 witnesses listed in the charge sheet, with around 150 witnesses who would be examined out of it.

However, the State had argued that Section 508 BNSS r/w Section 530 BNSS permits recording evidence through audio-video electronic means. Moreover, no prejudice or denial of fair opportunity has been made out in the absence of physical production.

Case Title: Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.

Case No: WP 28836/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

Tags: