Whether Session Judge can adjourn cross examination of child witness without assigning any reason?
in the form of dying declarations it would not be out of place to
mention here that examination-in-chief of PW-4 Akshada was
recorded on 8th April, 2011. As can be seen from deposition, on
the application of learned counsel for Accused her cross*xamination
was adjourned till next date. She was cross*xamined
on 16th April, 2011. Above adjournment granted by Trial
Court only discloses that Trial Court was oblivious of specific
stipulation containing in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure which mandates requirement of sessions trial to be
carried on a day-to-day basis. No reason or special
circumstances have been assigned by the Trial Court to justify
grant of adjournment of eight days for cross-examination of a child
witness PW-4 Akshada.
16 In Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar3
, the
Honourable Supreme Court directed all the High Courts to remind
all the Trial Court Judges of the need to comply with Section 309
of the Code of Criminal Procedure in letter and spirit. In fact, High
Courts were directed to take note of conduct of any particular Trial
Judge who violates above legislative mandate and to adopt such
3 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692
administrative action against Judicial Officer as per law.
17 The above directions were reiterated once again in
case of State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh4
. Later in Akil
Alias Javed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)5
in paragraph No.43 the
Honourable Apex Court expressed displeasure and observed
thus:
“43. It is unfortunate that in spite of the specific
directions issued by this Court and reminded once again
in Shambhu Nath such recalcitrant approach was being
made by the trial court unmindful of the adverse serious
consequences flowing therefrom affecting the society at
large. Therefore, even while disposing of this appeal by
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant by the learned trial Judge, as confirmed by the
impugned judgment of the High Court, we direct the
Registry to forward a copy of this decision to all the High
Courts to specifically follow the instructions issued by
this Court in the decision in Raj Deo Sharma and
reiterated in Shambhu Nath by issuing appropriate
circular, if already not issued. If such circular has
already been issued, as directed, ensure that such
directions are scrupulously followed by the trial courts
without providing scope for any deviation in following
the procedure prescribed in the matter of trial of
sessions cases as well as other cases as provided
4 (2001) 4 SCC 667
5 (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 125
under Section 309 CrPC. In this respect, the High
Courts will also be well advised to use their machinery
in the respective State Judiciary Academy to achieve
the desired result. We hope and trust that the
respective High Courts would take serious note of the
above directions issued in the decision in Raj Deo
Sharma which has been extensively quoted and
reiterated in the subsequent decision of this Court in
Shambhu Nath and comply with the directions at least in
the future years.”
18 Keeping various principles set out in above decisions
in mind when we examine situation that had occurred in present
case where PW-4 Akshada a crucial child witness was initially
examined on 8th April, 2011 and then without assigning any reason
cross-examined on 16th April, 2011 solely at the instance of
counsel for the Accused we disapprove the procedure followed by
the Trial Court Judge and direct the Registry to take serious note
and ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 309 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in letter and spirit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2012
Rajesh @ Raju s/o Nagnath @ Nivrutti
Sardiwal (Pardeshi),
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : A. B. CHAUDHARI &
INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 09th September, 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2220
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/06/whether-session-judge-can-adjourn-cross.html
