The Delhi High Court has said in a case related to the riots in Delhi in February 2020 that immediate hearing cannot be held at the cost of fairness, as it will be against all the principles of justice and the accused should be given appropriate opportunity. Justice Anoop J Bhambhani said in an order on 16 February that he was not proud of the court for an attempt to pursue the case rapidly, but the right to cross -examining was important for the petitioner's defense and uncomfortable disposal of it The feeling is reflected.
Justice Bhambhani said that we do not want the mistake to believe that the objective of the prompt hearing will be fulfilled by not giving an accused to cross -examine the prosecution witness on an important issue.
He said that this court believes that postponing the hearing of the case for the next day or after any day would have been a balanced and appropriate way. The immediate hearing is actually in the interest of the accused who claims to be innocent, but the boom in the case cannot be at the cost of fairness, as it will be against all principles of justice.
The case belongs to an accused associated with the February 2020 riots, who has requested to re -call a witness for the cross -examination during the trial. The accused wants to cross -examining a policeman to prove that when he (policeman) did not mention him (the accused) in his initial statement and the petitioner was never identified, then he suddenly suddenly accused the accused. How did he identify him in form?
The accused complained that the hearing court, despite requesting to postpone the proceedings, refused to give a day time to cross -examining the witness and denied him of the appropriate opportunity. The High Court gave the petitioner a chance to cross -examining the witness. He said that of course unnecessary adjournment should never be given, but no one should forget that its purpose is to ensure fair hearing, and the purpose of recording the statement rapidly is also to fulfill the objective.
The prosecution defended the decision of the lower court and said that there is no appropriate basis for the accused person to request the non -availability of the senior advocate. The High Court looked at the plea of prosecution, but said that when there is a good reason, it may not be wrong to postpone a case for one or two days for the cross -examination.
