New Delhi: The Delhi High Court in a February 2020 riots case has said expediting trial couldn't be at the cost of fairness as it was against "all canons of justice" and the accused had to be given a fair opportunity.
Justice Anup J Bhambhani, in the order passed on February 16, said while it did not fault the trial court for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously, the right to cross-examine was "critical" to the petitioner’s defence and there appeared a "disproportionate sense of expedition".
"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 court said.
The judge went on, "This court is of the view that adjourning the matter to the next day or to any day soon thereafter, would have been the balanced and appropriate course of action. 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 trial, since that would be against all canons of justice."
The case related to a February 2020 riots' accused who sought to recall a witness for cross-examination during the trial. He wanted to cross-examine a policeman to elicit the fact that he could possibly not have "suddenly" identified him when he did not refer to him in his statement earlier and the petitioner was never put through a test identification parade.
His grievance was that the trial court declined to give even a day’s time to cross-examine the witness after an adjournment was sought and curbed his opportunity. The high court granted him "one and only one opportunity" to cross-examine the witness and said though unnecessary adjournments should never be granted, one should not forget that the purpose was to conduct a fair trial, and recording depositions expeditiously intended to subserve that purpose.
The prosecution defended the trial court's decision and said non-availability of a senior lawyer on behalf of an accused person was no ground for seeking an adjournment. The court noted the argument but said to roll-over a case for cross-examination by a day or two, when there was good reason, could not possibly be faulted.
