The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on a law officer and a trial court judge for the manner in which witnesses were examined and the trial was conducted in a robbery case.
Justice R K Gauba expressed his disappointment with the type of questions put to witnesses in the case and pointed out at the "callous and irresponsible" behaviour on the part of a public prosecutor during the trial.
"Given the deficiency in the manner in which the prosecution was conducted, lapses of such nature coming to the notice of this court too frequently for comfort, it is necessary that suitable action is taken and advice or instructions are issued by the prosecution department to the concerned quarters," the judge said.
Terming it as a "very cryptic examination-in-chief" of the police official, who had arrested the accused in the case, the court noted that the public prosecutor had failed to ask the policeman about the documents relating to the arrest of three persons and also recovery of the stolen articles from their possession.
The court recommended that a copy of its judgement be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Delhi government for appropriate action at their end.
The high court said in its judgement that the records do not reflect about any witnesses being summoned or produced in connection with the case.
It observed that it could not be a "matter of whims, caprice or fancy of the public prosecutor to choose as to what he would ask or what he would avoid asking of the witnesses".
"The duty of the public prosecutor is one of great responsibility. He holds an office of trust. He is the spokesperson for the society at large. It was the bounden duty of the public prosecutor to examine the witnesses so as to bring on record the evidence in entirety.
"The manner in which the task of adducing the evidence on behalf of the prosecution has been handled reflects total callous and irresponsible conduct," the court observed.
It then went on to rap the Additional Sessions Judge, describing the manner in which the trial in the case was presided over by him as "very disturbing".
During the hearing, it also noted that that testimony of a witness and police official had been abandoned midway.
The high court, in this regard, said that the examination of the same witness as a fresh witness on a later date "shows poor control, if not apathetic attitude".
It noted that the additional sessions judge had taken it upon himself to take on record material available in the file of the other case in which the same people had been accused of robbery.
The high court opined that if common evidence had to be led against the same set of accused, the proper course would have been to club the proceedings and hold a joint trial.
"The procedure adopted by the trial court is thus found bad and vitiating the end result," the court said and set aside the conviction and the sentence and remitted the case back to the sessions court, to conduct the proceedings from the stage of taking prosecution evidence.
The trial court was asked to begin the proceedings from July 10.
It ordered that the matter be proceeded with on day-to- day basis till final adjudication.
"Needless to add, the witnesses in whose examination deficiencies have been noted, some referred to above, will have to be recalled and examined further, of course, with fresh opportunity given to the defence for cross-examination," it added.
The court was hearing a bunch of appeals challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants for offences including punishment for robbery, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
