The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

Delhi High Court Allows Final Cross-Examination: ‘Better to Err on Side of Caution for Fair Trial’

27 August 2024 1:57 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), granting the accused a final opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix in a sexual assault case. Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, set aside the previous order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that had closed the cross-examination, stressing the importance of a fair trial and the need to prevent any miscarriage of justice.

The case involves allegations of rape and sexual assault by the petitioner, Tkreeb, against the prosecutrix, who was a minor at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix was initially examined on July 22, 2022, and subsequently cross-examined on January 10, 2023, where she denied the occurrence of the alleged incident. The prosecution then sought to re-examine her, and this was carried out on March 2, 2023. However, the cross-examination was closed on the same day without further questioning due to a request for adjournment being denied.

Justice Amit Mahajan underscored the principle that the right to cross-examine is crucial for the defense and is a fundamental aspect of ensuring a fair trial. The court highlighted that the prosecutrix's testimony is central to the case, and the failure to allow cross-examination could lead to an unjust outcome. The court noted that the counsel for the petitioner had requested an adjournment on March 2, 2023, due to personal reasons, which was denied, leading to the closure of cross-examination. The court found this to be an insufficient ground for denying the petitioner a final opportunity to cross-examine the key witness.

The court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and other relevant judgments, which stress that the power under Section 311 CrPC is broad and should be exercised to ensure a just decision. The court emphasized that this power should be used judiciously and not arbitrarily, particularly in cases where the evidence of the witness is crucial for a fair adjudication. In this case, the court found that denying the petitioner another chance to cross-examine the prosecutrix would be contrary to the interests of justice.

While granting the petition, the court also recognized the rights of the prosecutrix under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Justice Mahajan directed that the cross-examination be conducted on a single date to avoid unnecessary harassment or trauma to the prosecutrix. The court made it clear that no further adjournments would be permitted, ensuring that the process is handled with care and sensitivity.

Justice Amit Mahajan remarked, "It is better to err on the side of caution and afford the accused an opportunity to ensure a fair trial, rather than foreclose the possibility of eliciting truth through cross-examination."

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision to allow a final opportunity for cross-examination reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of a fair trial while balancing the rights of the victim in sensitive cases under the POCSO Act. The ruling is expected to impact how courts handle similar applications under Section 311 CrPC, emphasizing the importance of careful judicial discretion to prevent any potential miscarriage of justice.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2024​.

Tkreeb v. State of NCT of Delhi

Similar News