Read Time: 04 minutes
The bench also remarked, “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”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, in an application filed by an accused in the northeast Delhi riots held that while the right to a speedy trial is in the interest of the accused, however, such a trial cannot be expedited at the cost of fairness of the trial.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “Speedy trial is in fact more in the interest of an accused who claims innocence; but expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of the trial, since that would be against all canons of justice”.
Mohd. Danish, an accused in a rioting case from February 24, 2020, filed a petition seeking a direction against the trial court to recall the Head Constable for cross-examination in the Sessions Case.
Advocate Bilal Anwar Khan, for Danish, argued that the head constable had not identified Danish in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on June 1, 2020. However, during his deposition in court on January 24, 2025, he suddenly identified as Danish.
Special Public Prosecutor Ashish Dutta, for State, opposed the petition arguing that granting adjournments in a case with nearly 270 witnesses would cause undue delay.
The court first acknowledged the importance of expeditious trials but also emphasized that fairness in proceedings should not be compromised.
The court observed that the sudden identification of the petitioner after five years raised concerns that needed to be addressed through cross-examination. It noted that even if the senior lawyer had been present, he would have required time to consult the petitioner before questioning the witness effectively.
Balancing the need for a speedy trial with the principles of fairness, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It set aside the trial court’s order to the extent that it denied Danish the opportunity to cross-examine PW-9. The court directed that the petitioner be given one limited and time-bound opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
For Petitioner: Advocates Bilal Anwar Khan, Varun Bhati and Anshu KapoorFor Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Ashish DuttaCase Title: Mohd. Danish v State (W.P.(CRL) 486/2025)
Please Login or Register
