Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Explanation From Trial Judge For Deferring Prime Witness' Cross For Over 7 Weeks In Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from a trial court judge for deferring the cross-examination of the prime witness in a murder case for over seven weeks. The Court observed that such an unwarranted delay undermines the principles of a fair trial and ia in contradiction of Apex Court rulings.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The way trial proceedings are being carried out appears to be in derogation of the principles of fair trial including the dicta of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015) and Selvamani vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024."

In Selvamani case, the Court reiterated Vinod Kumar case, wherein the Apex Court said that, it is necessary, though painful, to note that the witness was examined-in- chief on 30-9-1999 and was cross-examined on 25-5-2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well as to the victim.

"It would have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said witness was examined," the Supreme Court had said.

In the present case, Justice Goel observed that noted that coss-examination of the prime prosecution witness (FIR-complainant/eye- witness) was partly conducted on July 08 and deferred to September 22, i.e for a period of about seven weeks.

The development came while hearing a regular bail plea in FIR registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 427 and 120-B of IPC in Haryana's Jhajjar.

The High Court had initially directed the trial Court to send the report detailing therein the status and progress of the trial.

"There are nine accused persons in that case, who have been represented by different Advocates and each of the Advocate has desired to cross-examine separately the prosecution witness namely Vinod Kumar (complainant). Therefore, due to this reason also the testimony of complainant could not be concluded in one date. This is for your kind information," stated the report submitted by the trial judge.

Calling the deferring of cross "disquieting", the Court sought an explanation from the concerned trial Judge on administrative side.

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. J.S. Sohal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Rohit vs. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order