Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 807
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
Nav Rattan
Versus
The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
CRL. A. No. 64 of 2010
Decided On : 12-03-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP with Inspector Rajeshwar Aggarwal, P.S. Alipur.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to legal assistance.
Headnote:
Fair Trial - Criminal Law - IPC 392/397 - The court found that the appellant was denied a fair trial as two material witnesses were not cross-examined on behalf of the appellant and other accused persons, resulting in a denial of a fair opportunity of cross-examination. The judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for providing a counsel to the appellant and recalling the witnesses for cross-examination.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 392/397 of IPC for a robbery. The appellant denied the allegations against him and claimed to be innocent. He was sentenced to undergo RI for eight (8) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo SI for four (4) months in default.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was denied a fair trial as two material witnesses were not cross-examined on behalf of the appellant and other accused persons, resulting in a denial of a fair opportunity of cross-examination.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of a fair trial to the appellant due to the failure to cross-examine two material witnesses on behalf of the appellant and other accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of a fair opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant amounted to a violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure and a denial of due process of law.
Final Decision: The judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for providing a counsel to the appellant and recalling the witnesses for cross-examination.
V.K. Jain, J. (Oral)
1. On 24.8.2003, at about 5:40 a.m., Rakesh, a resident of Village Mukhmelpur informed on telephone that robbers had entered their house and had robbed them at the point of gun. The information was recorded vide DD No.36A of Police Station Alipur and a copy of the DD was given to ASI Jai Kumar of the aforesaid police station. When he reached the spot, the complainant Rakesh Kumar was present there. The complainant told the police officer that in the night he had kept the door of the house open, as he had some physical problem. At about 4:00 a.m. on 25.8.2003, he heard some noise in the house whereupon he got up. When he tried to raise alarm, two (2) boys armed with country made pistols put their pistols against him and threatened to shoot him in case he raised alarm. The third person with them had a torch in his hand. His wife and children also woke up. Those persons threatened to shoot his wife and children in case they raised alarm and asked him to take out whatever he had. He further stated that he had Rs.1,500/- with him which the robbers snatched from him. They also forcibly removed ear rings which is wife was wearing besides taking out the silver paijeb and silver pendant kept in the almirah. Thereafter they went out and left after bolting the main gate.
2. This is also the case of the prosecution that on 27.8.2003, the appellant Nav Rattan who had been arrested in the case registered vide FIR No.310/2003, Chet Ram who had been arrested in the case registered vide FIR No.311/2003 and Chanderpal who had been arrested in the case registered vide FIR No.312/2003 confessed to their involvement in the aforesaid robbery whereupon they were arrested in this case. The case property alleged to have been got recovered by them was obtained and deposited in the malkhana of the police station. The appellant Nav Rattan refused to join TIP. The case property was got identified in a TIP and thereafter three (3) persons namely Chet Ram, Chanderpal and the appellant Nav Rattan were prosecuted.
3. All the three persons chargesheeted by the police were charged under Section 392/34 of IPC whereas Chanderpal and the appellant Nav Rattan were additionally charged under Section 397 of the Penal Code for having used country made pistols during the commission of the robbery. Since the persons accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined sixteen (16) witnesses. No witness was examined in defence.
4. The complainant came in the witness box as PW3 and inter alia stated that in the night of 24.8.2003, he had kept the main entrance of the house open though he had closed the gate. At about 4:00 a.m., he woke up on hearing some noise and saw that three (3) persons have entered the premises. Two of them were holding country made pistols, whereas one of them was carrying a torch. He identified all the three (3) accused persons as those who had entered the house. According to them the accused Chet Ram was carrying a torch whereas Nav Rattan and Chanderpal were carrying country made pistols. He further stated that both Nav Rattan and Chanderpal threatened them with country made pistols, threatening to kill him in case he raised alarm. They also threatened his wife and son who had woken up in the mean while. Thereafter they looted Rs.1,500/- from his possession and also took away the ear rings which his wife Babli was wearing. They also took away the silver paijeb and silver pendant which had been kept in the almirah and left the spot after locking the door from outside. The witness identified the pair of anklet Ex.P1, Silver chain with pendant Ex.P2 and pair of ear ring Ex.P3 as the articles which the accused persons had stolen from his house.
5. PW6 Smt. Babli is the wife of the complainant. She corroborated his deposition and identified all the three (3) accused persons, claiming that Chetram had a torch with him whereas the other two accused were holding kattas in their hands. She also
