While dealing with a position under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Delhi High Court has held that the 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.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has in this regard,
"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."
The present petition was on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the orders of Additional Sessions Judge whereby opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine a witness was closed and the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the said witness dismissed.
The petitioner's Counsel submitted that initially, both the father and the mother of the deceased were cited as prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW1 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 vide the impugned orders and only Vinod Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) was present and examined, whereas the mother of the deceased (PW-2) was not summoned on that day.
The counsel also contended 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 prayed for one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine Vinod Kumar Chauhan on one single day, on which day he would also conduct the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness.
To cover the scope of 311 Cr.P.C., reference was made to Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as (2012) 7 SCC 56 wherein it was stated that Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is the object of every fair trial.
Coming to the factual situation of the case, it was observed 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, i.e. PW2, from the array of witnesses. It was informed that to date, only one witness has been examined and the other witnesses were yet to be examined by the prosecution.
Further, while observing that the petitioner in the present case ample opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witness but he did not utilise the same, the Court added that 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.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the fact that the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan was the father of the deceased, the Court deemed it apposite to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witness, subject however to cost.
Case Details
Name: KRISHAN KUMAR V. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI
Number: CRL.M.C. 3422/ 2021 and CRL.M.A. 20081/ 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
