The accused, Mohd Danish, had moved the High Court seeking a direction to the trial court to recall a prosecution witness in the case -- head constable Shashikant -- for cross-examination. (File photo)After a surprise disclosure by a head constable, implicating a man as an accused in the Northeast Delhi 2020 riots for the first time in court deposition — five years after the incident — a trial court last month had refused to allow the accused time to cross-examine the witness. Now, the Delhi High Court has overturned the trial court’s order.The HC reiterated that speedy trial “cannot be at the cost of fairness of the trial since that would be against all canons of justice”. “We must not delude ourselves into believing that the purpose of expeditious trial would be served by denying to an accused a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue,” Justice Anup Bhambhani held in an order on February 13.The accused, Mohd Danish, had moved the High Court seeking a direction to the trial court to recall a prosecution witness in the case — head constable Shashikant — for cross-examination.Danish, in his plea, submitted that in relation to the rioting incident of February 24, 2020, head constable Shashikant had not named or identified him in his June 1, 2020, statement recorded under CrPC Section 161; he only identified Danish as an accused in the course of his court deposition recorded on January 24 this year.Since Danish was not identified earlier, the senior lawyer representing him before the trial court, was not present on the day; thus, Shashikant was not cross-examined. When the junior counsel representing Danish had sought time from the trial court to cross-examine Shashikant, the request was rejected.The trial court refused to give the accused even a day to allow a senior counsel on his behalf to cross-examine the witness. It said a day-to-day trial in the case has been ordered and recorded that “it shall not (be) possible to conduct a desired speedy trial in the case unless defence counsel also act professionally”.Justice Bhambhani, while allowing Danish’s request, recorded, “… not to suggest that long and unnecessary adjournments should be granted for the asking, especially when a witness is under cross-examination, but to roll-over a case for cross-examination by a day or two when there is good reason for it cannot possibly be faulted… In the present case, it is not that the petitioner had acted carelessly and gone completely unrepresented on 24.01.2025. Junior counsel was present for the petitioner… in the course of his (prosecution witness Shashikant’s) examination-in-chief on 24.01.2025, i.e., almost 5 years later, the witness identified the petitioner in court. There can hardly be any doubt that this would have come as a rude shock to the petitioner (Danish); this court would venture to think that even if the senior lawyer representing the petitioner was present before the learned trial court on that day, he would have taken time to consult the petitioner to cross-examine the witness thoroughly, apart from confronting him with the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.”Story continues below this adJustice Bhambhani further recorded, “While this court does not fault the learned trial court for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously, in the opinion of this court, denying the petitioner the right to cross-examine (head constable Shashikant) on an issue which is critical to the petitioner’s defence — namely to his very presence and identity at the time of the occurrence — appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition. Nothing prevented the learned trial court from rolling over the cross-examination of PW-9 to the next date or to an early date thereafter, so as to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to cross-examine that witness; and to also obviate any subsequent challenge that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness…”© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Chirag Delhidelhi