On November 28, 2024, the Supreme Court expressed deep concerns about systemic delays in the justice delivery process while addressing procedural irregularities in a POCSO case. The Court set aside orders of the trial court and Allahabad High Court, which had denied the accused’s application to recall a key witness for cross-examination, despite the illegality of recording evidence in the absence of the accused and his counsel.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the trial court’s actions violated the accused’s right to a fair trial. It emphasized that conducting the examination of the complainant (PW1) without the accused or his advocate present, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused clear prejudice. The Court remarked, “The trial court could not have recorded the evidence of PW1 in the absence of the appellant and his advocate. This is a classic case that shows how systemic inefficiencies delay trials.”
The trial court had closed the cross-examination of the complainant on July 27, 2021. When the accused filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall the witness in May 2023, the trial court rejected it. This decision, supported by the public prosecutor’s opposition, was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court criticized the prosecution’s approach, stating, “The public prosecutor ought to have taken a fair stand and ensured the trial was conducted fairly. Even before the High Court, the government advocate vehemently opposed the recall application, ignoring the fundamental procedural flaw.”
The bench highlighted that due to procedural inefficiencies, the application filed in May 2023 was being resolved in December 2024, delaying justice further. It added, “The result is that now, almost three years after PW1’s evidence was recorded, the witness will have to be recalled for cross-examination.”
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to issue summons to PW1 for cross-examination by the appellant’s counsel on a date fixed by the trial court, ensuring adherence to fair trial principles.
Background of the Case
The appellant is facing charges under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. During the pandemic in February 2021, the complainant (the victim’s father) was examined via video conferencing. However, the accused’s counsel was not present. Cross-examination was subsequently closed in July 2021, and the appellant later sought recall of PW1 in 2023 under Section 311 CrPC.
The trial court rejected the recall application in May 2023, and the High Court upheld this decision under Section 482 CrPC, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Nadeem v. State of UP
Case No.: Crl.A. No. 4856/2024
This ruling reinforces the Court’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and highlights the critical role of procedural adherence in upholding justice.
Lawcutor 