Delhi court sets aside order denying accused right to cross-examine complainant

New Delhi, Feb 23 (PTI) A Delhi court has set aside an order that had struck off an accused's right to further cross-examine the complainant in a 2018 case, allowing his revision petition.

Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri held that closure of the right to cross-examine the complainant would "operate harshly" upon the accused and amount to denial of principles of natural justice.

Accused Devender Kumar filed a revision petition against an April 9, 2025 order of a magisterial court in a phone-snatching case filed by the complainant, Bhawna. The trial court had struck off his right to cross-examine the complainant.

“It is stated that closure of right of petitioner to cross-examine witness amounts to denial of natural justice and fair opportunity to be heard, thus warranting interference by this Court,” said the sessions court in its order dated February 19.

In his plea, the accused submitted that he had sought an adjournment to cross-examine the complainant and her sister, Poonam, who are both prosecution witnesses, on the same day. The request was not considered due to Poonam allegedly changing her address and his right to further cross-examine the complainant was closed.

Allowing the petition, the sessions court observed that both witnesses were sisters residing at the same address and that the investigating officer had earlier submitted he could produce Poonam before the trial court.

“In these circumstances, order of closure of right to cross-examine prosecution witness-1 (Bhawna) further to petitioner would operate harshly upon petitioner and would amount to denial of principles of natural justice to him as PW-1 is star witness for prosecution, she being complainant in the case,” the court said.

The judge further noted that the trial court should have made greater efforts to secure the presence of Poonam, including summoning her through the investigating officer or the concerned DCP, before passing such an order.

The court held that if the state was unable to procure the presence of Poonam and the accused continued to insist on her presence before further cross-examining Bhawna, only then could an order like the impugned one have been passed.

The court permitted the accused to further cross-examine the complainant and directed the trial court to endeavour to procure the presence of the second witness on the same date so that both could be cross-examined together. PTI MDB MDB KVK KVK