Delhi High Court
Deepak Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 September, 2018
$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:25.09.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 832/2018
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the
State.
SI Sonu Siwach, PS Sarai Rohilla.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
25.09.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.32909/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 832/2018 & Crl.M.A.32908/2018 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns orders dated 06.08.2018 and
05.09.2018, wherein, the Trial Court has recorded the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses Pratima and Nand Lal respectively and
thereafter discharged them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient
opportunity was not given to the counsel for the defence to be ready
for the cross-examination of the said witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the
record, inter alia the orders dated 16.10.2017, 30.11.2017,
23.12.2017, 08.02.2018, 15.03.2018, 12.04.2018, 10.05.2018,
30.05.2018 and 06.08.2018, which, inter alia, show that the matter
was being adjourned from time to time for examination and cross-
examination of Nand Lal and the same was being deferred for want of
the FSL report. Orders dated 12.04.2018, 10.05.2018 and 30.05.2018
further show that the matter was adjourned for securing the presence
of PW12 Pratima.
4. Perusal of order dated 06.08.2018 shows that PW12 Pratima
was present in Court, examined and discharged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said witness
was examined and discharged and no opportunity was granted to the
petitioner to cross-examine the said witness as at that time when the
testimony was recorded only a proxy counsel was present, who sought
for Passover or an adjournment to cross-examine PW12 Pratima but
the opportunity was not granted.
6. Further with regard to PW Nand Lal, it is pointed out that on
05.09.2018, the FSL report was produced by the Investigating Officer
for the first time and on the same date the witness was examined and
discharged.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the
FSL report, a CD of transcript of social media chats, videos and other
evidence was produced and tendered in evidence and sufficient
opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to examine the same and
be ready for his cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that now he has received the CD and is ready for cross-
examination.
8. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner was
not afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the said
witnesses and an opportunity needs to be granted.
9. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to re-summon PW12
Pratima and PW Nand Lal for the purpose of giving an opportunity to
the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses.
10. The petition is, allowed in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
