MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Sufficient opportunity for cross-examination must be Granted to Defence; trial court directed to Re-summon witnesses

Judgment delivered on:25.09.2018

CRL.REV.P. 832/2018

DEEPAK KUMAR ….. Petitioner


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.


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.

See also  Judges must know their limits. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors

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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Condonation of delay rejected due to ‘lackadaisical approach’ of the applicant
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation