In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasizes the necessity of legal representation for the accused, invoking inherent powers to correct a trial court's oversight.
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, has set aside a trial court's order, emphasizing the right to a fair trial and the critical role of legal representation. The case involved Ram Swaroop Gupta and others, who challenged the trial court's dismissal of their application to recall a witness for cross-examination due to the absence of their legal counsel.
The petitioners, represented by advocates Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat and Ms. Naimishi Verma, argued that their inability to cross-examine witness PW-1, Mr. Jagmohan Gupta, on the scheduled date was due to the absence of their counsel, not deliberate negligence. The trial court had earlier denied their application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to the former Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Justice Kathpalia, acknowledging the inherent powers of the High Court to address gross injustices, observed that the absence of legal representation during cross-examination could vitiate the entire trial process. The court highlighted that the trial court has the discretion to recall witnesses to ensure fairness, even without a formal application.
The judgment underlined that the presence of legal assistance is a core element of a fair trial. It is imperative for trial courts to ensure that accused individuals are not left to fend for themselves during critical stages of a trial. The High Court criticized the trial court's failure to invoke its powers to prevent injustice and stressed that the fairness and purity of the trial must not be compromised, even in the pursuit of expeditious proceedings.
In its order, the High Court directed the trial court to grant the petitioners another opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 with the assistance of their legal counsel. The court further instructed that, in situations where the accused appear without legal representation, trial courts should appoint an amicus curiae or direct legal services authorities to provide counsel, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the trial process.
The High Court's decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's duty to uphold justice and fairness, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not override the fundamental rights of the accused. The trial court has been directed to reschedule the cross-examination and conduct the proceedings in a manner that aligns with these principles.
The ruling has been circulated among all Principal District & Sessions Judges in Delhi to prevent similar situations in future criminal trials, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of fair trial standards.
Bottom Line:
Dismissal of application under Section 348 of BNSS (earlier Section 311 CrPC) for recall of witness for cross-examination - High Court can invoke inherent powers to prevent gross injustice, even if interlocutory order - Fair trial requires presence of legal assistance for accused; trial court should ensure fairness by appointing amicus curiae or legal aid counsel if necessary.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 348 (earlier Section 311 CrPC), Section 438(2) (earlier Section 397(2) CrPC)
Ram Swaroop Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842095
