The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently slammed a trial judge for postponing the cross-examination of a rape victim and her mother for about five weeks.

Justice Sumeet Goel rejected the trial judge’s explanation that the case was adjourned only to give a reasonable time to the accused for engaging a private counsel.

“It is evident that no substantial cause has been demonstrated in the explanation to justify the unwarranted adjournment of the matter for cross-examination of the prime prosecution witness for a protracted period of 05 weeks. This delay, in a matter of such gravity, amounts to a dereliction of judicial duty and reflects poorly on the expeditious administration of justice,” the Court said.

It further observed that a judicial decision requires due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration.

A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable, it added.

“Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that comes to the Court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves. A Court speaks through its action and more so through its judgments and orders, which is the platform for communication between all the stake holders. This should above all create a sense of confidence in the system,” it said further.

The Court also remarked that a Judge’s responsibility is very heavy, particularly in a case where a man’s life and liberty hang upon her decision and nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. 

It made the observations while dealing with a bail petition moved by an accused in the case under provisions of Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

During the hearing on August 20, the Court had sought an explanation from the judge after it was told that the two main witnesses - victim and her mother, were examined without the presence of any counsel for the accused.

Further, it was noted that cross-examination was deferred at the request of the accused.

In her explanation, the Additional Districts and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, said that the defence counsel had in fact been present when the witnesses were examined. However, the trial judge said the defense counsel had left the courtroom when asked to cross-examine them.

“The accused, who was produced in judicial custody, was also asked to call his counsel to cross-examine the witness, but learned defence counsel did not appear in the court. Ultimately, the accused requested adjournment to engage new counsel as his earlier counsel was not responding to his calls. The accused was given option to engage legal aid lawyer and to avail services of the legal aid defence lawyer, but he requested that he intends to engage private counsel to defend his case. In these circumstances, this court considered the request made by accused himself, to protect his valuable right to cross-examine material witnesses of the case,” the trial judge said in the examination.

The trial judge further said that these facts could not be recorded in the order due to workload as 3 civil and 43 criminal cases were listed before her on July 29, the date on which witnesses were examined in the present case.

However, the High Court said the explanation does not call for acceptance as no pragmatic cause was shown for adjourning the case for cross-examination of the prime prosecution witness for a long period of 5 weeks.

The same shows absolutely inappropriate undertaking of proceedings on part of the trial Court in a serious matter, it added.

“Ergo, the explanation submitted by the learned trial Court that the entire facts could not be recorded in the zimni order dated 29.07.2024, also deserves to be rejected. Under the circumstances, the concerned trial Judge is advised to remain careful in future while discharging her judicial functions,” the Court further said.

In view of the same, it directed the trial court to send a report regarding status of trial, while listing the matter for hearing on October 24.

Meanwhile, the petitioner, who is accused of helping the main accused in enticing away the victim, was granted interim bail by the Court.

Advocate Harmanpreet Singh represented the petitioner.

Advocate Yuvraj Singh represented the State.