The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed Uber rape case accused Shiv Kumar Yadav to recall the victim and some of the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination in his trial. However, the court forbade repetition of any questions that had already been posed before them in any earlier trial and also prevented the rape accused from seeking further adjournments “on any ground whatsoever”.
The court has also said that in case these witnesses were not available for any reason, then his or her testimony could be taken as evidence as it is.
Explaining why this decision was made in a detailed 29-page judgement, the one-judge Bench of Justice Sunita Gupta rejected most of the arguments put up by the counsel of the accused but partially allowed his petition “in the interest of justice”.
“Keeping in view the well established principle that fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner and fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunity to the person concerned... in the interest of justice, the petition is partly allowed,” said Justice Sunita Gupta, while also observing that the petitioner/accused was in custody and in case he adopted delaying tactics, it is only he who would suffer.
The accused had stated in his petition that his two earlier lawyers were so ill-qualified that one of them had not “even passed the screen test as was required by Bar Council of Delhi and, as such, was not competent to contest the case on behalf of the petitioner”.
The court said that these submissions were “not fortified by any record” and accepted the prosecution’s arguments that the “competency of an advocate is a subjective issue which should not have been attacked behind the back of the advocate concerned”.
The accused had also argued against the trial of the case on a day-to-day basis using the principle “justice hurried is justice buried” and this, the court said deserved “outright rejection”. In fact, the judgement specifically stated that the trial must continue in the Sessions Court on a day-to-day basis.
In December, the victim, a 25-year old finance executive, was on her way home when the accused cab driver had allegedly raped her.
