Delay Tactics: Delhi High Court Upholds Cost, Rejects Accused's Lost Evidence Plea After Multiple Supplies in Rape Case (S. 482 Cr.P.C.) - 2025-04-27

Delhi High Court Upholds Costs, Rejects Accused's 'Lost Evidence' Plea Citing Delay Tactics in Rape Trial

New Delhi: In a significant ruling emphasizing the need for efficient trial procedures and discouraging delay tactics, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in a rape case challenging a trial court's order. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the accused's plea for a duplicate copy of a digital video disc (DVD) containing alleged crucial evidence and the imposition of a cost of Rs. 25,000.

The judgment, delivered by the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on March 20, 2024, came in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to set aside the order dated November 2, 2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mohit Yadav, faces charges under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the investigation, his mobile phone was seized, containing data (recordings) that he claimed demonstrated a love relationship with the prosecutrix. This data was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and reports were received in 2016.

According to the court record, the petitioner had previously sought copies of these DVDs, withdrawing an application in 2019, but was subsequently supplied with copies by the trial court on January 31, 2020. Extra sets were provided later, and the court specifically noted on August 22, 2020, that the DVDs had been received by the defence counsel.

The cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1) spanned approximately seven years and was finally concluded on October 6, 2023. Nearly three weeks after her discharge, the petitioner filed an application seeking a duplicate copy of DVD-1, claiming it had been lost and was essential for his defence as it contained recordings proving his relationship with the prosecutrix.

Trial Court's Rationale

The trial court, in its order dated November 2, 2023, rejected the application for several reasons: - The application was filed after the crucial witness (PW-1) had been discharged following seven years of cross-examination. - The petitioner had been supplied copies of the DVDs on multiple previous occasions (orders cited from 2018, 2019, and 2020). - Similar issues regarding the DVDs had been raised and addressed multiple times during the cross-examination itself. - The application was deemed a "blatant attempt to further derail the case" and frivolous, with no explanation provided for the alleged loss of the DVD.

Furthermore, the trial court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the accused under Explanation (2) to Section 309 Cr.P.C., citing unnecessary adjournments and the exceptional circumstances of the case being pending since 2016 with dates often given at the defence's convenience.

Arguments Before the High Court

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that rejecting the request violated his right to a fair trial, asserting the relevance of the data to prove innocence. It was contended that due to the huge volume of data, the DVD was misplaced, preventing the recordings from being put to the prosecutrix. The counsel also argued that the cost was exorbitant and delays were also attributable to the prosecutrix's absence and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The State counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had deliberately sought unnecessary adjournments and had already been provided the DVD copies on multiple occasions, thus the petition was merely an attempt to further delay the trial.

High Court's Findings

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma 's judgment meticulously reviewed the trial court's orders and the history of the case. The High Court fully endorsed the trial court's observations, noting the repeated supply of the DVDs to the petitioner and the suspicious timing of the application filed after the prosecutrix's discharge.

The Court highlighted the severe impact of delays in cases involving sexual assault victims, stating that "any unnecessary delay... only serves to prolong the victim's suffering and obstruct the delivery of timely justice." It noted that such delays force survivors to "re-live their traumatic experiences repeatedly."

The High Court characterized the accused's claim of losing the evidence after several years and multiple supplies as a "calculated attempt to exploit the legal process" and identified a "pattern of repetitive attempts to delay the trial." The Court emphasized that the victim should not "suffer due to the carelessness or manipulative tactics of the accused."

Regarding the cost, the High Court found it "not excessive," stating it served as both a "punitive measure and a deterrent" against attempts to prolong proceedings unnecessarily, particularly after a seven-year-long cross-examination period for the victim. The Court reiterated that "deliberate attempts to prolong legal proceedings for personal advantage or strategic reasons cannot go unchecked."

Decision

Finding no infirmity in the trial court's order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, upholding both the rejection of the duplicate DVD application and the imposition of the Rs. 25,000 cost. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair and expeditious trials, especially in sensitive cases, while preventing the abuse of procedural rights to cause undue delay.