P&H HC Seeks Explanation From Trial Judge For Conducting Proceedings In Lackadaisical Manner, Deferring Witness Examination On Accused's Request

Flagging the lackadaisical approach of a trial Court judge in conducting proceedings, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to seek an explanation from the judge and submit a report on the same.

While hearing a bail plea in a rape case, Justice Sumeet Goel noted "a disturbing aspect of the matter" in the trial court, wherein, "the examination-in-chief of two private prime prosecution witnesses namely the victim and mother of the victim was recorded on 29.07.2024 & cross-examination of these two witnesses were deferred to 06.09.2024 at the request of the accused."

The Court relied on Apex Court's decision in Vinod Kumar vs. the State of Punjab [2015] to underscore that, "It would have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said witness was examined."

The judge further observed, "It appears that the learned trial Judge is undertaking trial proceedings in lackadaisical nay negligent manner. The examination-in- chief of 02 prime prosecution witnesses namely the victim and mother of the victim appears to have been recorded on 29.07.2024 without the presence of any Counsel on behalf of the accused and, further, the cross-examination has been deferred at the request of the accused that they intended to engage “a new counsel”."

The Court noted that the cross-examination of the 2 prime prosecution witnesses, and the most material prosecution witnesses (the victim and mother of the victim) had been deferred for a period of about 05 weeks, the Court noted further.

Justice Goel opined that the way trial proceedings are being carried out appears to be in derogation of the provisions of law including the dicta of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Selvamani (Selvamani vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police: 2024 INSC 393). 

However, before drawing any conclusion, the Court deemed it appropriate that an explanation be sought from the concerned trial Judge.

Consequently, the High Court called for an explanation from the concerned trial judge on or before the next date of hearing.

"Registrar (Vigilance) is also directed to put up a note regarding the instruction(s) issued by this Court to Trial Courts in respect of issue of deferring cross-examination of prosecution witnesses," it added.

Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh AAG Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX