NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has permitted an accused in a Delhi riots case to recall a key prosecution witness for cross-examination, reinforcing the principle that a speedy trial must not override fairness in judicial proceedings.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while considering the plea by accused Mohd. Danish, underscored that expeditious trials serve the interests of justice only when they do not compromise fundamental fairness. The Court allowed Danish to cross-examine Head Constable (HC) Shashikant, a prosecution witness whose sudden in-court identification of the accused had raised crucial questions.
The Court observed that while a speedy trial benefits an accused claiming innocence, it cannot come at the cost of fairness. Justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of urgency.
Danish argued that during the initial investigation, Shashikant neither named nor identified him. However, in his deposition before the trial court in 2025—five years after the 2020 riots—Shashikant suddenly recognised Danish. Adding to the defense’s concerns, the accused had never been subjected to a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
On the day of the witness’s testimony, Danish’s senior counsel was absent, resulting in a missed cross-examination. The defense insisted that questioning Shashikant was imperative to uncover the basis of his delayed identification.
Opposing the plea, the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) argued that granting adjournments would delay the trial. The High Court, however, rejected this contention, stating that while unnecessary delays must be avoided, ensuring a fair trial takes precedence.
The Court stated that a trial’s swiftness should never come at the cost of due process. “Denying an accused the right to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a critical issue reflects an excessive sense of urgency,” the Court remarked.
Balancing the need for efficiency with justice, the Court ruled that brief adjournments, when warranted, must be granted. It directed the trial court to fix a date for Shashikant’s cross-examination, ensuring Danish gets a fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s claims.
‘Speedy trial cannot come at the cost of fairness’
The Court observed that while a speedy trial benefits an accused claiming innocence, it cannot come at the cost of fairness. Justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of urgency. Danish argued that during the initial investigation, Shashikant neither named nor identified him. However, in his deposition before the trial court in 2025—five years after the 2020 riots—Shashikant suddenly recognised Danish. Adding to the defense’s concerns, the accused had never been subjected to a Test Identification Parade (TIP).