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" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Delhi High Court Grants Limited Opportunity for Cross-Examination in POCSO Case, Upholding Right to Fair Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the right to a fair trial by granting a limited opportunity for cross-examination in a case involving offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, highlights the significance of cross-examination in rebutting the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and ensuring witness protection.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate, sought to set aside an order dismissing their application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the recall of Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) for cross-examination. The court acknowledged the duty of criminal courts to protect witnesses, especially in cases relating to women's security, but emphasized the indelible right to cross-examination as an essential aspect of a fair trial.

Justice Gedela stated, "The right to cross-examine would be all the more at a higher pedestal in cases of such serious nature, considering the harsh punishments prescribed under the POCSO Act" (Para 12). The court recognized that although the petitioner had filed the application with a significant delay of one year, this alone should not be a ground for denying the opportunity to cross-examine PW1.

The High Court granted the petitioner a single date, August 7, 2023, for the cross-examination of PW1, with a strict directive that no further opportunities would be provided. The trial court was permitted to proceed with the recording of evidence of other witnesses after the cross-examination.

As a precondition for the granted opportunity, the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the witness within one week. Any violation of the conditions would result in the automatic vacation of the opportunity.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of the right to cross-examination in ensuring a fair trial, particularly in cases involving offenses under the POCSO Act. It strikes a balance between witness protection and the accused's right to challenge the prosecution's case through cross-examination.

Date of Decision: July 4, 2023

SUSHIL KUMAR  vs STATE GNCTD THROUGH SHO & ANR

Latest Legal News