June 11. 2018

A Delhi Court while setting aside the jail term awarded to 2 men for allegedly robbing a person of valuables in 2011, said that Justice shouldn't be sacrificed in an attempt to dispose of a case in a speedy manner.

This observation was made by Additional Sessions Judge S. K. Gupta while allowing the appeal of the 2 men challenging the  3-year sentence awarded to them by a magisterial Court on grounds that they didn't get a chance to cross-examine 2 important police witnesses.

"Prosecution witnesses 4 & 5 (police officials) have deposed about recovery of robbed articles from the appellants. Both're material witnesses. The cross examination of any witness is essential in order to bring out the truth. The appellants have no way to bring his defense on record except to test the credibility of witnesses during the cross examination," the Judge said.

"The counsel for the appellants wasn't present. The Court should've deferred their cross examination instead of recording as 'Nil Opportunity' given. Justice should not be sacrificed in an attempt to dispose of the case in a speedy manner."

The Court said interest of justice demands that both of them(witnesses) should be recalled for cross examination in order to bring defence on record.

"Their cross-examination is all the more essential in order to unfold the real facts," Court said while sending the matter back to the Trial Court & asking it to give the appellants an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses & dispose of the case expeditiously.

"To my mind, Trial Court hasn't given opportunity to appellants for cross examination of PW­4 & 5 though reliance is placed on their testimony while convicting appellants.

"In these circumstances, the Trial Court has committed an illegality by placing reliance on their testimony while deciding the case. The conviction & sentence passed against appellants can't be sustained in view of these facts," it said.

A Magisterial Court had on 1st February 2017 sentenced the 2 men to jail for 3 years for the offence of robbery under Section 392 read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

In their appeal against the order, the men contended that it was a cooked up story by the complainant and they didn't get a chance to cross examine material witnesses in the case.

According to the complaint, on 21st May 2011 the complainant was going home on his motorcycle & had stopped near Moolchand metro station here due to a dust storm.

As soon as he stopped, 2 persons came & beat him before robbing him of his mobile phone & wallet which contained Rs 200 cash & debit & credit cards, & fled with his motorcycle, it alleged.

Picture Source :