No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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