"Harassed Her By Seeking Repeated Adjournments": Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Order Restricting Accused's Right To Cross-Examine Prosecutrix
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the trial court to restrict the right of accused to cross-examine the prosecutrix, while noting that the man made "every effort to harass" the woman by continuously seeking adjournments for her cross examination. In doing so the court underscored that adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjournment...
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the trial court to restrict the right of accused to cross-examine the prosecutrix, while noting that the man made "every effort to harass" the woman by continuously seeking adjournments for her cross examination.
In doing so the court underscored that adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjournment and the court should keep the difficulties in mind which witnesses may be facing.
A single judge bench presided by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in its order said, "It is true that the applicant may suffer irreparable loss on account of non-cross-examination of prosecutrix, but for this hard-burning situation, only the applicant is responsible who was involved in making every effort to harass the prosecutrix by continuously seeking adjournments for her cross-examination.”
The court stated that such delaying tactics by the defence cannot be approved and merely change of counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment since the applicant would have been aware of the next date of appearance. It said:
“Thus, it is clear that the only intention of the applicant was to somehow harass the prosecutrix by continuously seeking adjournments. Such delaying tactics, which was being adopted by the applicant, cannot be approved. Furthermore, the change of counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment because the applicant was already aware of the next date before the trial court and, therefore, he should have made the arrangements much prior thereto.If the applicant had decided not to instruct the lawyer and to engage a new lawyer just in order to seek adjournments, then the ill-intentions of the applicant cannot be upheld by adopting a lenient view”.
In this case, the high court noted that there were various adjournments taken by the defence for cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecutrix's examination in chief took place on February 9; from the deposition sheet it was found that the counsel for the defence/applicant prayed for deferment of cross examination on the ground of lack of preparation. Cross examination was deferred by trial court. It was adjourned to February 23, but the applicant did not file the order sheet to show as to what transpired on this date. Thereafter on March 6 the right of the applicant to cross examine the prosecutrix was closed.
The court noted that it was clear from the order that the prosecutrix was present while the counsel for the applicant sought time to cross examine. When the trial court said that applicant must pay some cost, the "counsel for the applicant refused to pay any cost"; in these circumstances the right to cross examine was closed. Against this order the applicant moved the high court.
Before the high court the applicant argued that if is denied the right to cross examine the prosecutrix he will suffer irreparable loss.
Referring to various judgments the high court said, "Therefore, it is clear that the adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjournment and the Court should keep the difficulties in mind, which may be faced by the witnesses. On 9.2.2024 when the prosecutrix was present and her examination-in-chief was record, it was the applicant who prayed for deferment of cross- examination on the ground that his counsel was not properly prepared. Although the case was fixed for 23.2.2024 but the ordersheet of 23.2.2024 has not been placed on record. Why that has not been placed, is only known to the applicant. Be that whatever it may be. Thereafter when the case was taken up on 6.3.2024 the prosecutrix was present and now the applicant engaged some new lawyer, who also prayed for some time to cross-examine the prosecutrix and also refused to pay cost to the prosecutrix".
Finding that the trial court did not commit any mistake by closing the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix, the high court dismissed the applicant's plea.
Case title: Tulsi Ram Lodhi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case no: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43730 of 2024