Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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