Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court

21 September 2024 12:54 PM

By: sayum


Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling in Anil Kumar vs. State of UP, rejecting the bail application of the accused charged under Section 376 (rape), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 452 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court underscored that deferred cross-examination creates opportunities for witness tampering, which undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial. This judgment also reaffirms the legal principle that testimony from hostile witnesses should not be entirely disregarded, requiring careful scrutiny of credible portions.

The accused, Anil Kumar, was charged with serious offenses including rape and criminal intimidation. Initially, the victim supported the prosecution’s case during her examination-in-chief. However, during her cross-examination two months later, she retracted her earlier statements. The prosecution argued that this delay in cross-examination allowed time for the accused to influence the witness, a practice that jeopardized the fairness of the trial. The defense sought bail on the grounds that the victim had recanted her testimony, which lessened the likelihood of conviction.

The key legal issue revolved around whether the victim’s change in testimony during deferred cross-examination could be a result of manipulation and whether such a practice breached the principles of a fair trial. The court cited the precedent set in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2014), where the Supreme Court emphasized the dangers of delayed cross-examination, observing that such gaps can lead to "prevarication" and undue influence over witnesses.

The Allahabad High Court also addressed whether the victim’s testimony, having become hostile, could still be relied upon. Quoting C. Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010), the court reiterated that the testimony of a hostile witness should not be entirely discarded. Instead, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny, and parts that remain consistent with the prosecution's case may still be used as credible evidence.

"Delays in Cross-Examination Enable Witness Prevarication, Violates Fair Trial Principles," Rules Court

Justice Krishan Pahal highlighted that the victim's cross-examination was postponed by over two months without a valid reason. This delay, the court noted, may have provided the accused with the opportunity to tamper with the witness. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinod Kumar, the court emphasized the need for prompt and continuous witness examination to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The judgment also referenced other notable cases such as Rajesh Yadav & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and Hussain & Another vs. Union of India (2017), all of which stressed the importance of avoiding delays in cross-examinations, especially in serious criminal matters. The court expressed concern that repeated adjournments for cross-examination transform trials into a "mockery," undermining the rule of law.

In rejecting the bail application, the court pointed to the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the witness, and the principles of justice that require an uninterrupted trial process. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the ongoing case, in line with Supreme Court guidelines, to ensure that further delays do not compromise justice.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision to deny bail reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the integrity of witness testimony and ensuring that trials are conducted without undue delays. The court emphasized that allowing long adjournments in cross-examinations can lead to witness manipulation, which fundamentally compromises the fairness of the trial. The court ordered the trial court to conclude the case expeditiously, ensuring that no further delays occur.

Date of Decision: September 19, 2024

Anil Kumar vs. State of UP and 3 Others

Similar News