Delhi High Court: The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by petitioner-accused seeking setting aside of order dated 2-11-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (S.F.T.C)-01, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘the Trial Court’) vide which the cost of Rs 25,000 was imposed on petitioner and his application for providing him a duplicate copy of DVD was rejected. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that petitioner’s claim, after several years, of having lost a crucial piece of evidence i.e., the DVD containing alleged conversations between him and prosecutrix, was a calculated attempt to exploit the legal process, as petitioner was given the same DVR on various occasions previously. The Court thus held that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order.
Background
On 14-9-2015, charges were framed against petitioner under Sections 328, 276(2)(n), and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner submitted that during investigation and at the time of arrest, a mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) concerned and petitioner had requested the IO that the data in the mobile phone contained the recordings between him and prosecutrix, which established their love relationship and therefore, the contents of the same should be preserved. Thus, the phone was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) with request by the IO to retrieve the data.
During the course of the trial, an application under Section 91 of the CrPC was moved by petitioner for supply of the copy of the same, which was later withdrawn on 21-10-2019. Thereafter, the Trial Court had supplied the copy of the DVR’s received from FSL vide order dated 31-1-2020. The cross-examination of witness concluded after a period of around seven years on 6-10-2023. Petitioner had then requested a duplicate copy of DVDs, which contained recordings of conversations between petitioner and prosecutrix, which was declined vide order dated 2-11-2023, leading to the filing of the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the application for procuring the duplicate copy of the DVDs was preferred by petitioner only after the discharge of the witness, who was cross-examined for a long period of seven years. The Court noted that the Trial Court had repeatedly dealt with the request of providing DVDs to petitioner.
The Court opined that “in cases involving rape victims, any unnecessary delay in the legal process only serves to prolong victim’s suffering and obstruct the delivery of timely justice. The trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault was profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain”.
The Court also opined that “delay in cross-examination of victims results in additional unjustified emotional strain on survivors of sexual assault. They are forced to re-live their traumatic experiences repeatedly and are left grappling with the renewed effect of such sexual assault. This is the result of wilful delays in cross-examination by an accused. This delay in administration of justice not only interferes with their healing process but also prolongs their journey towards closure and recovery of such traumatic experience. Recognizing the emotional toll of such delays is crucial in ensuring that survivors are treated with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings which includes expeditious trials and minimum possible essential appearances in the Court for the purpose of deposition”.
The Court further opined that the claim by petitioner, after several years, of having lost a crucial piece of evidence i.e., the DVD containing alleged conversations between him and prosecutrix, was a calculated attempt to exploit the legal process, as petitioner was given the same DVR on various occasions previously. The Court noted that this conversation was the data of the mobile phone of petitioner himself. Thus, petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of repetitive attempts to delay the trial, despite the already substantial seven-year delay in cross-examination of the witness. By repeatedly filing applications for being provided with the same evidence, that is, the DVD, which was already provided to him on multiple previous occasions, it appeared that petitioner was attempting to manipulate the system for his benefit.
The Court observed that “the victim should not be made to suffer due to the carelessness or manipulative tactics of the accused. It was unjust for the victim to bear the consequences of any negligence or misconduct on the part of the accused. The legal system must balance the rights and well-being of the victims and fair trial to the accused. However, at the same time, the accused also had to remain accountable for his actions, if the same point out towards deliberate delay. By upholding these principles can the legal system fulfill its duty to ensure a fast and fair judicial adjudicatory process”.
The Court further opined that in the present case, the imposition of costs might serve a dual purpose, as a punitive measure and a deterrent. The completion of the cross-examination of victim after a prolonged period of seven years underscores the gravity of the delay in the present case. The Court opined that “in the halls of justice, delay was the silent enemy of truth and fairness. Therefore, the Courts impose costs as a means of discouraging such behaviour and ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and without undue delay”.
The Court thus held that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order as the DVD which contained conversations between petitioner and prosecutrix had been provided to petitioner’s counsel, repeatedly, on various dates.
[Mohit Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1948, decided on 20-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Viney Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Satish Kumar, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
