There cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an Accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to an Accused thereunder. Ultimately it will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the kind of questions put to an Accused, considered with anything further that the Accused may state in his defence. In other words, there will have to be a cumulative balancing of several factors. While the rights of an Accused to a fair trial are undoubtedly important, the rights of the victim and the society at large for correction of deviant behaviour cannot be made subservient to the rights of an Accused by placing the latter at a pedestal higher than necessary for a fair trial.

In Sukha v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0026/1956 : 1956 SCR 288, it was observed as follows:

35. .....We have recently decided that we will be slow to entertain question of prejudice when details are not furnished; also the fact that the objection is not taken at an early stage will be taken into account.