In serious criminal trials, the right to complete the cross-examination of a key witness is essential for a fair trial; a single instance of counsel's absence should not permanently bar this right if it would gravely prejudice the defense.

$~28

*

O R D E R

% 19.12.2025

1. This petition assails the order dated 29th November, 2025 passed by ASJ-02, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Case no. 57684/2016 titled as “State vs. Mahesh Verma & Ors.” arising out of FIR no. 410/2015 P.S. Nangloi whereby Petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “CrPC” seeking recall of PW-2 (prosecutrix) for further cross-examination has been declined.

2. The Petitioner (husband of the prosecutrix) is one of the accused in the case and is facing charges for serious offences under Sections 498A , 380, 354, 354B, 342, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²IPC.

3. The trial has been pending for a considerable period of time and has now reached an advanced stage.

4. The Petitioner’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix was closed by the Trial Court on 6th February, 2025 on account of the absence of the Petitioner’s counsel. It is the Petitioner’s case that the matter was originally listed for 5th February, 2025, which was declared a holiday on account of the General Elections, 2025, and was therefore taken up on 6th February, 2025.

It is contended that the Petitioner’s counsel inadvertently noted an incorrect next date in his diary and was consequently unable to appear before the Trial Court on that date. As a result, the opportunity to further cross-examine PW-2 was closed and she was discharged.

5. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and other prosecution witnesses were examined and duly cross-examined by the Petitioner’s counsel. Subsequently, on 4th August, 2025, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of PW-2, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

6. The Court has heard the counsels for the both sides. Indeed, the trial has been protracted and has spanned nearly a decade. For this reason, as well as the fact that the prosecutrix has been sufficiently cross-examined by the Petitioner on multiple dates and that there was a delay on part of the Petitioner in filing an application for recall of the Prosecutrix, the Trial Court did not find any justifiable ground to allow the Petitioner’s request. These aspects have also been emphasized by Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, to defend the impugned order. He submits that the lapse on the part of the Petitioner’s counsel cannot, by itself, justify recall of the prosecutrix, particularly having regard to the gravity of the allegations. It is further emphasized that any indulgence by this Court is likely to further cause delay in the progress of the trial.

7. The observations made by the Trial Court as well as the submissions advanced by Mr. Vali have merit. At the same time, it is apparent from the record that although the prosecutrix had been cross-examined on multiple dates, her cross-examination had not concluded when the opportunity was closed on 6th February, 2025. The last effective cross-examination had taken place on 6th December, 2024. The closure of evidence was due to the absence of the Petitioner’s counsel on a single date, which is sought to be explained as an inadvertent error in noting the date.

8. While the delay of several months in filing the application for recall is a matter of concern, it is equally relevant that during this period the trial did not remain stagnant and the Petitioner continued to participate in the proceedings, including