In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of fair trial, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that denying an accused the opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness can severely prejudice their right to defense. Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgoankar, presiding over the case, highlighted that such denial undermines the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the rule of law, particularly the right to a fair trial.
The case arose from a criminal revision petition challenging an order by a Sessions Judge, which closed the accused's right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO) after a single default. The defense counsel argued that the examination-in-chief of the IO had been recorded, but during the cross-examination stage, the senior counsel was unavailable. A request was made to adjourn the cross-examination to the next hearing date, assuring that any additional costs incurred would be borne by the accused. Despite this, the Trial Court rejected the application and closed the right to cross-examine the IO, citing delay.
The State's counsel contended that an associate counsel present during the hearing had cross-examined another witness but declined to cross-examine the IO, instead requesting an adjournment. They argued that the Trial Court's decision to reject the adjournment request was justified.
Upon reviewing the circumstances, Justice Kalgoankar observed that the closure of the right to cross-examine the IO on the first opportunity was both harsh and improper. He noted that the right to a fair trial includes the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and denying this right, especially after a solitary default, compromises the accused's ability to mount an effective defense. The Court emphasized that such actions could not be sustained in the eyes of the law as they defeat the purpose of ensuring justice through fair trial procedures.
The Court further elaborated that cross-examination is a critical tool for the defense to test the veracity of prosecution witnesses. It is through cross-examination that an accused can challenge the credibility of evidence presented against them. Therefore, curtailing this right without substantial justification undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
In light of these considerations, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to ensure the propriety of the proceedings and uphold the principles of a fair trial. The impugned order by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and directions were issued to recall the Investigating Officer, allowing the defense counsel to conduct the cross-examination.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that procedural fairness is not compromised. It serves as a reminder that the right to cross-examine is not a mere formality but a fundamental aspect of the adversarial legal system, essential for the administration of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.