Amit Shah to chair 27th Western Zonal Council meeting in Maharashtra on Saturday

New Delhi [India], February 21 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has emphasized that a speedy trial is indeed in the interest of an accused who claims innocence.

However, expediting a trial should not come at the expense of its fairness, as that would go against all principles of justice. The Court made this statement while allowing an accused in the Delhi Riots case to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination.

The Court suggested that adjourning the trial to a shorter date would be a balanced and appropriate course of action for the trial court to adopt.

“We must not delude ourselves into believing that the purpose of an expeditious trial would be served by denying an accused a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue. This does not mean that long and unnecessary adjournments should be granted at will, especially when a witness is under cross-examination. However, rescheduling a case for cross-examination by a day or two, when there is a good reason for it, cannot be faulted,” the High Court observed.

The Court noted that denying the right to cross-examine on an important issue “appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition” by the trial court.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stressed that a speedy trial cannot come at the cost of a fair trial. Therefore, he allowed the plea by the accused Mohd. Danish to recall prosecution witness, Head Constable (HC) Shashikant, for cross-examination.

The Court allowed Danish the opportunity to cross-examine Shashikant on a day fixed by the trial court.

Danish argued that Shashikant had neither mentioned nor recognized him in his statements during the investigation. However, during his deposition before the Court, Shashikant had recognized 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 cross-examining Shashikant is essential to comprehend how he suddenly identified Danish in court in 2025 for an incident that occurred in 2020. This is particularly important given that he did not mention Danish in his statement recorded during the investigation in 2020.

It was also pointed out that the Danish had not been subjected to a Test Identification Parade.

The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) argued that adjournment for cross-examination could not have been granted as it would cause a delay in the trial.

The Court did not agree with the SPP’s arguments and observed that while unnecessary adjournments should not be granted at this stage of the trial, it should not come at the cost of a fair trial.

“While unnecessary adjournments should never be granted, especially during the deposition stage, one must not lose sight of the ultimate purpose of the exercise, which is to conduct a fair trial. The recording depositions expeditiously serve this purpose,” the Court stated.