It is the duty of a trial court to ensure fair trial and not to shut its eyes when cross-examination of an important witness is ineffective, a sessions court here has observed.
District and Sessions Judge Girish Kathpalia made the observation while allowing the appeal of a man, accused of assaulting a woman at a CGHS hospital here, against a magisterial court order refusing to recall the complainant for cross-examination.
Fair trial
“It is the duty of the trial court to ensure fair trial, the object of the trial being to arrive at the truth. Denial of opportunity to an accused to carry out effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses entails not in just denial of fair trial to the accused but also denial of complete material before the trial court to arrive at the truth,” the judge said.
The man, an employee of a CGHS dispensary in south-east Delhi, had claimed that the complainant was not cross-examined properly due to his previous counsel’s incompetence.
“The court cannot shut its eyes in a situation where the cross-examination of a material witness is not just ineffective but practically nil, as happened in the present case. Going by the material on record, in my considered view, the court shall not be able to arrive at the truth without detailed and effective cross-examination of complainant de facto,” it said.
According to the prosecution, the woman had gone to the dispensary and was waiting for her turn when the accused suddenly caught hold of her hand and injured her. The accused however claimed she was trying to enter the doctor’s chamber out of turn and when he refused to allow her to go inside she lodged a false case against him. Opposing the claim, the prosecutor had said the plea for witness recall was filed at a belated stage and the trial could not be continued forever.
The court, however, relied on the contention of the accused that cross-examination of the complainant was practically nil as the only question asked by the previous counsel led to the answer that she was carrying the prescription slip of the doctor and that her husband was with the Delhi Police.
