The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called upon a trial court judge to explain the deferment of cross-examination of the prime prosecution witness in a murder case for over seven weeks, holding that such delay undermines the principles of a fair trial and runs contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
Justice Sumeet Goel remarked, “The way trial proceedings are being carried out appears to be in derogation of the principles of fair trial including the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) and Selvamani v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024).”
In Vinod Kumar, the Supreme Court had strongly disapproved of delays in cross-examination, observing that the gap of one year and eight months between examination-in-chief and cross-examination had provided undue scope for witness prevarication. It emphasized that a fair trial must be fair to the defence, the prosecution, and the victim. The principle was reiterated in Selvamani.
In the present case, the High Court noted that the complainant/eyewitness was partly cross-examined on July 8 but the remaining cross-examination was deferred to September 22, resulting in a gap of nearly seven weeks.
The development arose during the hearing of a bail plea in a case registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 427, and 120-B IPC in Jhajjar, Haryana. The High Court had earlier directed the trial court to submit a status report. In response, the trial judge stated that since nine accused persons were represented by different advocates, each sought to cross-examine the complainant separately, and hence the testimony could not be concluded on a single date.
Terming the deferment of cross-examination “disquieting,” the High Court sought an explanation from the trial judge on the administrative side.
Picture Source :
