Speedy Trial Can't Be At Cost Of Fairness Of Trial: High Court In Delhi Riots Case

While dealing with a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court has recently observed that expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice.

“We must not delude ourselves into believing that the purpose of expeditious trial would be served by denying to an accused a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

“That is not to suggest that long and unnecessary adjournments should be granted for the asking, especially when a witness is under cross- examination, but to roll-over a case for cross- examination by a day-or-two, when there is good reason for it, cannot possibly be faulted,” the Court said.

Justice Bhambhani allowed the plea moved by accused Mohd. Danish seeking recall of a prosecution witness- a head constable, for cross examination in the trial.

Danish contended that the head constable had not named or identified him in relation to the rioting incident in his statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC but had purported to identify him in his court deposition.

It was his case that since he had not been identified in the witness's statement, his senior lawyer was not present before the Trial Court on January 24 and therefore the head constable was not cross-examined.

The trial court had deposed the witness and closed Danish's opportunity to cross examine.

The prosecution submitted that adjournment could not have been granted by the trial court for cross-examination of the witness since there was a very large number of prosecution witnesses and trial in the matter would get delayed.

It was further submitted that non-availability of a senior lawyer on behalf of an accused person is no ground for seeking an adjournment.

Allowing the plea, the Court said: “Though there is no gainsaying that unnecessary adjournments should never be granted, especially at the stage when witnesses are being deposed, one also cannot lose sight of the fact that eventually the purpose of the exercise is to conduct a fair trial, and recording depositions expeditiously is intended to subserve that purpose.”

It added that while the trial court was not at fault for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously but denying Danish the right to cross-examine the head constable on the issue of his presence and identity at the time of incident was a “disproportionate sense of expedition.”

The court said that adjourning the matter to the next day or to any day soon thereafter, would have been the balanced and appropriate course of action.

Justice Bhambhani directed that Danish shall have a limited and time-bound opportunity to cross-examine the head constable on such date and time as may be appointed by the trial court, at its earliest convenience.

“It is made abundantly clear that one and only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for cross-examining PW-9 HC Shashikant, without any further leeway being given to him in his behalf,” the Court concluded.

Title: MOHD. DANISH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 214

Click here to read order