The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of a fair trial over the mere expedition of proceedings, emphasizing that a speedy trial cannot come at the cost of justice. The Court made this observation while allowing Mohd. Danish, an accused in the Delhi Riots case, to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, ruled in favor of Danish’s plea to recall Head Constable Shashikant for cross-examination, underscoring the fundamental principle that “speedy trial is in fact more in the interest of an accused who claims innocence; but expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice.”
The case pertains to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. During the investigation, Head Constable Shashikant had neither mentioned nor identified Danish in his statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, in his deposition before the trial court in January 2025, he unexpectedly identified Danish, raising questions about the credibility of his testimony.
Since Danish’s senior advocate was not present during this deposition, the defense was unable to cross-examine the witness at that stage. The trial court, however, declined the defense’s request for a short adjournment and proceeded to close Danish’s opportunity for cross-examination, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed the plea, arguing that permitting such an adjournment would delay the trial, given the substantial number of prosecution witnesses. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that while unnecessary adjournments must be avoided, fairness in trial proceedings must take precedence over procedural haste.
The Court elaborated, “Though there is no gainsaying that unnecessary adjournments should never be granted, especially at the stage when witnesses are being deposed, one also cannot lose sight of the fact that eventually the purpose of the exercise is to conduct a fair trial, and recording depositions expeditiously is intended to subserve that purpose.”
Criticizing the trial court’s refusal to grant even a brief adjournment, the Court remarked, “We must not delude ourselves into believing that the purpose of expeditious trial would be served by denying to an accused a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue. That is not to suggest that long and unnecessary adjournments should be granted for the asking, especially when a witness is under cross-examination, but to roll-over a case for cross-examination by a day-or-two, when there is good reason for it, cannot possibly be faulted.”
The High Court’s decision set aside the trial court’s order that had effectively closed Danish’s right to cross-examine Head Constable Shashikant. It has now directed the trial court to provide Danish with a limited, time-bound opportunity for cross-examination, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural expediency.
While allowing the petition, the Court issued a stern directive, stating that “one and only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for cross-examining PW-9 HC Shashikant, without any further leeway being given to him in this behalf.”
Picture Source :