1.
Banwari Lal — Approver / Co-Accused Turned Witness
Objective: Show that his testimony is coerced, inconsistent, and motivated by a
promise of pardon.
A. Background and Bias
1. You were originally arrested as one of the accused in this case, correct?
2. It’s true that you were offered a pardon in exchange for turning approver?
3. And that pardon would only apply if you testified against the accused?
4. So, your freedom depends on satisfying the prosecution, isn’t that right?
5. Did you have legal counsel present when you agreed to become
approver?
B. Coercion and Confession
6. How long were you in police custody before you gave your statement?
7. Were you questioned repeatedly by officers of the CID during this time?
8. Did they tell you what to say in your testimony?
9. Were you ever threatened with imprisonment or worse consequences if you didn’t
cooperate?
10. Did the police assure you that you would be released if you supported their version?
C. Inconsistencies
11. You have made more than one statement about this incident, haven’t you?
12. Do you admit that your earlier statements differed from the one given in court?
13. You have never produced any written document or material proof to support your
claims, correct?
14. No weapon, money, or document linking the accused was recovered on your
information, right?
15. So apart from your word, there is no independent evidence connecting the accused
to the alleged offence?
⸻
2. Investigating Officer (CID Officer / British Official)
Objective: Expose political bias, unlawful procedure, and weak evidence.
A. Legality and Fairness of Investigation
1. You were part of the CID of the United Provinces at the time, correct?
2. You were under the administrative control of the British Government?
3. Isn’t it true that this case was considered of political importance by your
department?
4. Were you instructed to take special steps to “set an example” through this
investigation?
5. The accused were nationalists known for anti-colonial writings, weren’t
they?
B. Procedural Lapses
6. You detained several persons for months without proper warrants, didn’t you?
7. Many of them were questioned without access to legal counsel?
8. Did you follow the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in recording their statements?
9. Were confessions obtained in the presence of a magistrate?
10. Can you show any evidence — fingerprints, weapons, or stolen money — recovered
from the accused?
C. Reliance on Approver
11. Your case depends mainly on the statement of Banwari Lal, correct?
12. Did you independently verify his statements before filing the charge-sheet?
13. Can you produce any independent eyewitness supporting his version?
14. Are you aware that the Evidence Act, Section 133 and 114(b), requires corroboration
of an accomplice’s testimony?
15. So, without such corroboration, the case rests solely on unverified statements, isn’t
that right?
3. Eyewitness (Passenger / Railway Employee)
Objective: Establish that the death was accidental, not intentional.
A. Scene of Incident
1. You were present on the train on the night of 9th August 1925?
2. When the train stopped, did any of the accused harm or threaten
passengers?
3. Did you see them targeting anyone in particular?
4. Was there any chaos or confusion when the train halted suddenly?
B. Shooting Incident
5. You heard a gunshot — can you say who fired it?
6. Was it dark and crowded at that time?
7. Could you clearly see who held the gun that fired?
8. Did you observe any deliberate aiming at Ahmed Ali?
9. So it appeared that the shot went off accidentally during the commotion, correct?
C. Conduct of Accused
10. After the shot, did the accused attack or threaten anyone else?
11. Did they help in calming people or preventing harm?
12. They took only the government treasury, not personal belongings of passengers,
correct?
13. So their act seemed more directed at government property, not personal gain?
Purpose of These Cross-Examinations
• Undermine prosecution credibility (Banwari Lal & CID).
• Show procedural illegality (biased tribunal, coerced confession).
• Prove lack of intent & accidental killing (passenger witness).
• Reinforce Section 80 IPC defence (accident) and Sections 24–26 IEA
inadmissibilit