The Delhi High Court recently allowed an accused in the Delhi Riots case to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination [Mohd. Danish vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.]..Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasised that speedy trial cannot come at the cost of fair trial and therefore, allowed the plea by accused Mohd. Danish to recall prosecution witness, Head Constable (HC) Shashikant, for cross-examination."Speedy trial is in fact more in the interest of an accused who claims innocence; but expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice," the Court stated. .Danish submitted that Shashikant had not mentioned or recognised Danish in his statements during investigation. However, while recording his deposition before Court, Shashikant had recognised Danish. Since the Senior Advocate representing Danish was not present before the trial court on that day, Shashikant could not be cross-examined.It was argued that it is important to cross-examine Shashikant to elicit how he suddenly identified Danish before court in 2025 from an incident of 2020, especially when he had not referred to Danish in the statement recorded during investigation in 2020. It was pointed out that Danish was not put through a Test Identification Parade..The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) stated that adjournment could not have been granted for cross-examination as it would cause delay in trial. The Court did not agree with the SPP’s arguments and observed that though unnecessary adjournments should not be granted at this stage of the trial, it should not come at the cost of a fair trial.“Though there is no gainsaying that unnecessary adjournments should never be granted, especially at the stage when witnesses are being deposed, one also cannot lose sight of the fact that eventually the purpose of the exercise is to conduct a fair trial, and recording depositions expeditiously is intended to subserve that purpose,” the Court stated. .The Court said that adjourning the trial to a shorter date would be the balanced and appropriate course of action for the trial court to adopt. “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. That is 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,” the High Court observed. .The Court stated that denying the right to cross-examine on an important issue “appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition” on part of the trial court. Therefore, the Court allowed Danish the opportunity to cross-examine Shashikant on a day fixed by the trial court. .Advocates Bilal Anwar Khan, Varun Bhati and Anshu Kapoor appeared for Danish.Special Public Prosecutor Ashish Dutta with Advocate Mayank appeared for State.[Read Order]
