Duty Of Trial Court To Give Time To Accused To Engage Counsel For Cross Examining Prosecution Witnesses: Karnataka HC
Duty of Trial Court to Allow Time for Accused to Engage Counsel for Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses
Legal Context
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A critical aspect of a fair trial is the right of the accused to effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Cross-examination is often the key to testing the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Role of the Trial Court
The trial court plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial. This includes:
Ensuring that the accused has adequate time to instruct and engage legal counsel.
Granting adjournments or reasonable time for the accused to arrange counsel for cross-examination.
Preventing any procedural unfairness that could arise if the accused is hurried or denied opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Karnataka High Court’s Explanation and Observations
The Karnataka High Court has consistently emphasized that:
Accused’s Right to Counsel: The accused must be given a fair opportunity to engage counsel of his choice, particularly for cross-examination, which is a critical stage.
Reasonable Time Must Be Granted: The Court must grant reasonable time and opportunity for the accused to engage a lawyer to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Denial of such time amounts to violation of the right to a fair trial.
Cross-Examination Cannot be Denied or Hindered: The Court must not proceed in a manner that denies the accused the chance to effectively challenge the prosecution case.
Adjournments in the Interest of Justice: While the trial court has discretion to regulate proceedings and prevent unnecessary delays, such discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing the need for expeditious trial and the accused’s rights.
Failure to Provide Adequate Opportunity is Ground for Interference: If the accused is not allowed reasonable time to engage counsel, it can be a ground for quashing the conviction or ordering retrial.
Key Case Laws Cited by Karnataka High Court
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
Held that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental right and any attempt to deny this opportunity would vitiate the trial.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 845
Emphasized the right of the accused to be represented by counsel and the duty of courts to allow reasonable time to secure legal representation.
3. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184
Affirmed the principles of natural justice and fair trial, including the right to adequate time for legal representation.
4. M.H. George v. Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, (1994) 6 SCC 129
Observed that a trial conducted in haste, denying the accused opportunity to defend or cross-examine, is fundamentally unfair.
5. G. Krishnamoorthy v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1553
Held that the court must ensure the accused is given every chance to defend himself, including engaging counsel and cross-examining witnesses.
Practical Implications
Courts must record reasons if they deny adjournments or refuse to grant time for engaging counsel.
A blanket refusal to allow time for legal aid or counsel during cross-examination can amount to a violation of Article 21.
The protection of procedural fairness outweighs the risk of delay, except in exceptional circumstances.
Summary
The Karnataka High Court underscores that the right to effective cross-examination with legal assistance is non-negotiable.
Trial courts have a mandatory duty to give reasonable time to the accused to engage counsel.
Denial of such opportunity may lead to quashing of the conviction or ordering a retrial.
The courts must balance the need for speedy justice with the accused’s constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments