HC seeks explanation from trial judge for deferring cross-examination in POCSO case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked its Registrar Vigilance to seek an explanation from a trial Judge in a POCSO case following five-week cross-examination deferral of two key prosecution witnesses – the victim and her mother.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the trial judge, it appeared, was undertaking the trial proceedings in “lackadaisical, nay negligent manner” and the delay appeared to contravene the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous rulings. Justice Goel added it would be appropriate to seek an explanation from the trial judge before drawing any conclusion. “Accordingly, the Registrar Vigilance of this Court is directed to seek explanation from the trial judge concerned and submit the same before this Court on or before the next date of hearing. The Registrar Vigilance is also directed to put up a note regarding the instructions issued by this court to trial courts in respect of issue of deferring cross-examination of prosecution witnesses,” the Bench observed.

The matter was placed before Justice Goel after the accused filed a petition for regular bail in a case registered in November 2023 for rape and other offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act at Mattewal in Amritsar.

The accused, during the course of hearing, brought to the court’s notice the fact that the victim and her mother were examined in-chief on July 29, but the cross-examination was deferred to September 6.

The trial court, in response to the high court directions on sending it a report on the trial proceedings, submitted that the cross-examination was deferred on the request of accused to engage a new counsel. Describing it as “a disturbing aspect of the matter”, Justice Goel referred to a SC judgment, which among other things, said it would have been absolutely appropriate on the trial judge’s part to finish the cross-examination on the day the witness was examined.

Justice Goel added the examination-in-chief of the two prime prosecution witnesses appeared to have been recorded in the absence of counsel for the accused. But the cross-examination was deferred at their request to engage a new counsel. “Still further the cross-examination of two prime prosecution witnesses, perhaps, the most material prosecution witnesses has been deferred for about five weeks. The way trial proceedings are being carried out appears to be in derogation of the provisions of law, including the dicta of the judgments of the SC,” the Bench added.