Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

“High Court Upholds Fair Trial Balance in Sexual Assault Case: Rejects Delay-Tactic Recall of Witnesses”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi affirmed the delicate equilibrium between an accused’s right to a fair trial and the interests of victims, particularly in cases involving sexual offenses against minors. The judgment, pronounced on July 31, 2023, centered around the interpretation of Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of recall applications for trial delay.

The petitioner sought the recall of prosecution witnesses In a sexual assault case concerning a minor. The Court took note of the fact that the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecutrix and her mother were already conducted at length during the trial. The application for recall was filed after a considerable lapse of six years from the time the witnesses’ testimonies were recorded. The Court highlighted the extensive cross-examinations already undertaken and questioned the motive behind the delayed recall application.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the judgment, observed, “While the right to a fair trial is crucial for the accused, it must be balanced with the equally important right of the victim to a fair trial. Especially in sensitive cases like sexual assault, the interests of the victim should not be ignored.” The Court referred to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which aims to protect child victims from repeated appearances in court, and stressed that the bar on repeated summoning had to be exercised judiciously.

Citing previous case law, the Court emphasized that the mere change of counsel could not be a valid ground for recall, and the right to fair trial should not be manipulated as a pretext for repeated witness examinations. The judgment cited the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav case (2016) 2 SCC 402 to underscore the importance of fairness not only for the accused but also for victims and society at large.

The Court concluded that the application for recall lacked merit and dismissed it, directing the Trial Court to ensure the expeditious conclusion of the trial. The ruling reiterated the principle that while ensuring a fair trial for the accused was vital, it should not impede justice or unduly burden victims, particularly in cases involving minors.

This decision is expected to reinforce the notion that the law should curb misuse of recall applications and expedite the judicial process, particularly in cases of sexual offenses against vulnerable individuals.

D.D: 31.07.2023

  RAKESH vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHII & ANR.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Rakesh_Vs_State_31July23_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News