Supreme Court Pushes for Day-to-Day Hearings in Rape, Sensitive Cases

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan observed that non-continuous criminal trials, where evidence is heard in a piecemeal fashion over many months or even years, constitute a significant factor contributing to delays in the justice system. The bench emphasised that the legitimacy of the right to speedy trial as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is beyond question.

The bench stated, "While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far outweigh the perceived benefits".

Court noted that speedy justice is a crucial component of social justice, as the community is invested in the final, condign punishment of the guilty within a reasonable time and the absolving of the innocent from an inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings. Court pointed out that the right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, recalling that its first written articulation appeared in 1215 in the Magna Carta: "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right".

Court directed the Chief Justices of the High Courts to direct their administrative sides to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries, ensuring that proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously. The circular, among other points, must stipulate that once the stage of examination of witnesses commences, such examination shall continue from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, except for special reasons which must be recorded in writing.

While acknowledging that the court has the discretion to defer cross-examination, the bench disapproved of the common practice across trial courts. It said, "But we do not approve the practice prevailing in the trial courts across the country that the examination-in-chief of a particular witness is recorded in a particular month and his cross-examination would follow in particular subsequent month".

The bench stressed the legal position that once witness examination starts, the concerned court must continue the trial day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (excluding those given up by the public prosecutor).

The bench expressed its deep concern, stating, "We are at pains to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy grounds. The legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds."

Court highlighted that Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) contains a mandatory provision requiring proceedings in every inquiry or trial to be held as expeditiously as possible, and specifically, that once the examination of witnesses has begun, it shall be continued on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless adjournment beyond the following day is necessary for recorded reasons.

The bench asserted, "The emphasis of this Section cannot be overlooked and must not be overlooked by any Judicial Officer who tries a criminal case, much less by the higher officers, like the Sessions Judges presiding over the Sessions Court, where serious offences are being tried day in and day out," adding that Section 309 was inserted in the Cr.P.C. specifically keeping the constitutional mandate of speedy trial in view.

The Supreme Court was dealing with a plea filed by the CBI seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused, Mir Usman alias Ara alias Mir Usman Ali, by the Calcutta High Court. The bench refused to interfere with the bail, noting that when the High Court granted bail on September 24, 2024, the accused had already been in custody for over 3 years and 5 months, and almost one year has passed since his release.

However, court took exception to the trial court adjourning the examination of the victim, who had already stepped into the witness box, to December 18, 2025. Following the court’s direction for a status report on September 8, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Purba Medinipur, submitted a report stating the victim suddenly fell ill on August 25 during her deposition. The report further assured that the date of recording the victim’s evidence, initially fixed on December 18, 2025, has been shifted back to October 24, 2025, which is the opening date of court after the Puja vacation, with an assurance that "henceforth a very shorthand consecutives dates will be fixed for recording evidence of the other prosecution witnesses".

Regarding the present case, the bench observed, "Having regard to the fact that the respondent–accused was ordered to be released on bail last year i.e., on 24-9-2024, and almost one year is going to elapse, we are not persuaded to set aside the bail and order that he may be taken back in custody. We want to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously and only important witnesses are examined by the State to prove its case."

The bench directed that once the oral evidence of the victim is complete, the trial court must make every possible endeavour to ensure the other witnesses are examined at the earliest, and the trial is completed with judgment by December 31, 2025.

Case Title: The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mir Usma @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan