High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the learned ASJ, whereby opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness was closed and the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the said witness dismissed.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, both the father and the mother of the deceased were cited as prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner so that the prosecution witnesses may not improve upon their case, a request was made to the Trial Court for an opportunity to cross-examine both the witnesses on one day. However, the petitioner’s request was declined by the Trial Court and, only Vinod Kumar Chauhan was present and examined, whereas the mother of the deceased was not summoned on that day.
It was also submitted that although an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking an opportunity to recall and cross-examine the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan was filed, the prosecution subsequently dropped PW-2 from the array of witnesses. He prays that under the circumstances, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine Vinod Kumar Chauhan on one single day, on which day he will also conduct the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court noted that the petitioner had initially sought to cross-examine both the parents of the deceased on one day, however the prosecution subsequently chose to drop the mother of the deceased from the array of witnesses. It has been informed that till date, only one witness has been examined and the other witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution.
Court observed that the petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witness but he did not utilise the same. Court stated that, “this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure. It entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused. It is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case. In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice.”
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “Keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the fact that the petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan is the father of the deceased, this Court deems it apposite to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witness, subject however to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case Title: Krishan Kumar v. The State Of Delhi
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 3422/2021 and CRL.M.A. 20081/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :