Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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

Latest Legal News