New Delhi, February 23 A Delhi court has overturned an order that had removed 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 removing the right to cross-examine the complainant would "operate harshly" on the accused and amount to a denial of the principles of natural justice.
The accused, Devender Kumar, filed a revision petition against an order of a magisterial court on April 9, 2025, in a phone-snatching case filed by the complainant, Bhawna. The trial court had removed his right to cross-examine the complainant.
"It is stated that removing the petitioner's right to cross-examine the witness amounts to a denial of natural justice and a fair opportunity to be heard, thus warranting interference by this Court," the sessions court said 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 because Poonam allegedly changed her address, and his right to further cross-examine the complainant was removed.
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 that he could produce Poonam before the trial court.
"In these circumstances, the order removing the right to cross-examine prosecution witness-1 (Bhawna) further to the petitioner would operate harshly on the petitioner, and would amount to a denial of the principles of natural justice to him, as witness-1 is a key witness for the prosecution, being the 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.