There can be no disputing the irrefutable fact as once again underscored by the Delhi High Court on December 21, 2021 in an extremely commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment titled Krishan Kumar vs The State (GNCT) Of Delhi in CRL.M.C. 3422/2021 and CRL.M.A. 20081/2021 : 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61 wherein it is firmly, frankly and forthrightly observed that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure which entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused. The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the accused who is charged with Section 304B of IPC. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri clearly stated that it is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case.

To start with, the single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri of Delhi High Court first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that:
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the orders dated 01.09.2021 and 21.09.2021 passed by the learned ASJ, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) was closed and the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the said witness dismissed.

While elaborating, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, both the father and the mother of the deceased were cited as prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW1 and PW-2 respectively. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner so that the prosecution witnesses may not improve upon their case, a request was made to the Trial Court for an opportunity to cross-examine both the witnesses on one day. However, the petitioner's request was declined by the Trial Court vide the impugned orders and on 01.09.2021, only Vinod Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) was present and examined, whereas the mother of the deceased (PW-2) was not summoned on that day. Learned counsel also submits that although an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking an opportunity to recall and cross-examine the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan was filed, the prosecution subsequently dropped PW-2 from the array of witnesses. He prays that under the circumstances, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine Vinod Kumar Chauhan on one single day, on which day he will also conduct the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness.

While referring to the relevant case law, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that:
The scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as (2012) 7 SCC 56, where the Court held as under:-

20. Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is the object of every fair trial, observed this Court in Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs.

xxx xxx xxx

23. We are conscious of the fact that recall of the witnesses is being directed nearly four years after they were examined-in-chief about an incident that is nearly seven years old. ... we are of the opinion that on a parity of reasoning and looking to the consequences of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, we would prefer to err in favour of the appellant getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice at his cost. Fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself.

Quite remarkably, the Bench then while referring to most relevant case laws lucidly observes in para 4 that:
In Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (State) reported as (2013) 5 SCC 741, while referring to its earlier decisions in Mir Mohd. Omar and Others v. State of West Bengal reported as (1989) 4 SCC 436, Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and Another reported as 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and Another reported as 1966 (1) SCR 178, Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi reported as (1999) 6 SCC 110, P. Sanjeeva Rao (Supra) and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar reported as (2008) 5 SCC 633, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at any stage of any enquiry, or trial, or any other proceedings under CrPC, or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

xxx xxx xxx

15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as any court, at any stage, or or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, any person and any such person clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.

16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardised. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same.

Be it noted, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that:
In the present case, it is noted that the petitioner had initially sought to cross-examine both the parents of the deceased on one day, however the prosecution subsequently chose to drop the mother of the deceased, i.e. PW2, from the array of witnesses. It has been informed that till date, only one witness has been examined and the other witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution.

Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 6 wherein it is held that:
Doubtless, the petitioner in the present case had ample opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witness but he did not utilise the same. Be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure. It entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused. It is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case. In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice.

It is worth noting that the Bench then holds in para 7 that:
Keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the fact that the petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and the witness Vinod Kumar Chauhan is the father of the deceased, this Court deems it apposite to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witness, subject however to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from today. On deposit of the cost, the Trial Court shall summon the aforesaid witness for one day, on which date, learned counsel for the petitioner shall conduct the cross-examination of PW-1 and no adjournment shall be granted in this regard.

Furthermore, the Bench then specifies in para 8 that:
It is informed that the matter is fixed before the Trial Court for 25.02.2022. The Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps to summon the aforesaid witness, and for that purpose, the matter shall be listed before the Trial Court on 14.02.2022.

What's more, the Bench then also holds in para 9 that:
It is further directed that in case the petitioner does not cross-examine the aforesaid witness on the date fixed by the Trial Court and seeks an adjournment, his right to cross-examine the witness shall stand closed.

For sake of clarity, Bench then states in para 10 that:
The petition is deposed of in the above terms, along with the pending application.

Finally, the Bench then concludes in para 11 by holding that:
A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court through the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

To sum it up, the single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri of the Delhi High Court has been most robust, realistic and rational in advocating most commendably that fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure and it is court's duty to not just ensure that the victims rights are protected but so also the accused equally gets proper opportunities to defend oneself and get a just decision. It merits no reiteration that all the courts must ensure this always while deciding cases. There can be just no denying or disputing it in any manner!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh