E-Paper
Long adjournments for cross-examining witnesses unhealthy practice: SC
The Supreme Court said as far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross-examine a witness the same day or the following day
Long adjournments granted by trial courts for cross-examining witnesses is an unhealthy practice capable of affecting the fairness of the trial and endangering the safety of witnesses, the Supreme Court has said while upholding the life imprisonment of a police constable for murdering a relative using his carbine at Delhi’s Mayur Vihar police station in 2002.
A bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal on Wednesday noted that there was a gap of two months between the recording of the prime witnesses’s statement and the date of cross-examination. It flagged the issue for future trials. “Such long adjournment as was given in this case after examination...should never have been given. Reasons for this are many, but to our mind, the main reason would be that this may affect the fairness of the trial and may even endanger, in a given case, the safety of the witness.”
The defence was given the adjournment to have the prime witness cross-examined with another witness. The Supreme Court cited records and said the reason was only a ruse to adjourn the matter as the other witnesses were examined nearly a year after the prime witness was questioned. “We only wanted to record this cautionary note to make our point that this practice is not a healthy practice and the courts should be slow in deferring these matters.”
The Supreme Court, which granted the convict Surender Singh bail in 2012 when he challenged the Delhi high court verdict upholding his conviction and sentence in 2011, directed him to surrender to the trial court within four weeks.
Singh was on guard duty when he killed Satish for having a relationship with his wife. A head constable at the police station, who was injured in the shooting, was the prime witness. The statements of the head constable and other policemen at the police station helped the prosecution secure the conviction in the case.
Singh argued in the Supreme Court that he was forced to fire in self-defence after Satish tried to assault him. The court rejected the argument. “The plea of self-defence taken by the accused is childish, to say the least, in the light of the facts of the case.”
Eight to nine gunshot wounds were found on Satish’s body mostly on his back. The prosecution said the first bullet was fired in Satish’s chest. As he tried to escape, Singh fired a volley of gunshots into his back.
The eyewitnesses testified against Singh with the Supreme Court concluding that the crime was a clear case of murder that deserved no mercy.
The court noted in case after case cross-examinations were being adjourned routinely. It added this can seriously prejudice a fair trial.
Justice Dhulia, who wrote the judgment for the bench, said as far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross-examine the witness the same day or the following day. “Only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross-examination should be deferred and a short adjournment can be given after taking precautions and care, for the witness, if it is required.”
The court referred to the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 231, which allows discretion for a judge to defer cross-examination of any witness or witnesses or even recall a witness. It added adjournment is not a matter of right but at the discretion. “This court had, on more than one occasion, condemned this practice of the trial court where examinations are deferred without sufficient reasons,” the bench said.
