MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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