No Fair Trial Without Cross-Examination’ – Delhi HC on Delhi Riots Case
The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Danish vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr has emphasised that a speedy trial cannot come at the cost of a fair trial, as it allowed an accused in the Delhi Riots case to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while ruling in favour of the accused Mohd. Danish, stated that while expedited trials are important, they should not compromise fairness.
Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.
“Speedy trial is in fact more in the interest of an accused who claims innocence; but expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice,” the Court observed.
Mohd. Danish vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr Case Background
Danish had moved the court to recall Head Constable (HC) Shashikant, a prosecution witness, for cross-examination.
- During the investigation in 2020, Shashikant had not mentioned Danish in his statements or identified him.
- However, while deposing in court in 2025, he suddenly recognised Danish, raising serious concerns.
- Danish’s lawyer was absent on the day of the testimony, and therefore, Shashikant was not cross-examined.
- The accused argued that it was crucial to cross-examine the witness, as there was no Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted to confirm his identity.
State’s Objection and Court’s Response
The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed the plea, arguing that granting an adjournment for cross-examination would delay the trial.
However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating:
Explore practical law courses to build career-ready legal skills.
“We must not delude ourselves into believing that the purpose of an expeditious trial would be served by denying an accused a fair opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue.”
- The Court made it clear that trials must be conducted fairly and denying cross-examination in such cases is unjustified.
- It acknowledged that delays should be avoided, but reasonable adjournments for cross-examination are necessary.
Mohd. Danish vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr Judgement
Justice Bhambhani ruled that the trial court erred in prioritising speed over fairness and that the refusal to grant cross-examination was a “disproportionate sense of expedition.”
“Recording depositions expeditiously is intended to serve the purpose of a fair trial, not to undermine it,” the Court remarked.
The Court directed the trial court to fix a date for Danish to cross-examine Shashikant, ensuring justice is served without unnecessary delays.
Join LawBhoomi’s 100K+ Community
