The denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a witness violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial.

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

13th AUGUST, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1004 of 2022 Vineet Sharma alias Cheenu Pandit .....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Victim : Ms. Sadaf, Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kum ar Verm a,J.

The present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Code”) has been filed on behalf of the applicant-accused Vineet Sharma alias Cheenu Pandit challenging the impugned order dated 25.05.2022, passed by learned I^st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2016, “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rajeev Sharma and Others”, whereby his Application under Section 311 of the Code for being granted an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness-Amit Verma, PW2, has been dismissed.

2. Heard Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent and Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for Suman Lata, the mother of the deceased.

3. The trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pending before the said Court.

4. It is not in dispute that the applicant was in judicial custody at the time of examination of the witness-Amit Verma, PW2 and the applicant was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witness Amit Verma, PW2.

5. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate and Ms. Sadaf, Advocate, has opposed the present Application, filed under Section 482 of the Code and submitted that several criminal cases are pending against the present applicant.

6. The right to cross-examine a witness is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. Denying this right can be considered a violation of natural justice. The right of cross-examination is a very salutary right and the accused would have to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution. The power under Section 311 of the Code must be invoked by the Court in order to meet the ends of justice.

7. Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate, submitted that the cross-examination of Amit Verma, PW2 shall be concluded on the same day for which the date will be fixed by the trial court.

8. Mr. R.K. Saklani, the Station House Officer, Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar is present through video conferencing. He has assured to provide all kinds of security to the witness Amit Verma, PW2.

9. In the light of the admitted fact that the applicant has not been given any opportunity to cross- examine the witness Amit Verma, PW2, it would be appropriate to grant one opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness Amit Verma, PW2.

10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 is hereby set aside and the Application, filed by the applicant under Section 311 of the Code, is allowed accordingly.

11. Learned trial court is directed to fix a date and call the prosecution’s witness Amit Verma, PW2 for cross-examination. It is also directed that the witness Amit Verma, PW2 be cross-examined on the same date. If the cross-examination of the witness Amit Verma, PW2 on behalf of the applicant is not concluded on the same day, then the applicant will not be granted any further opportunity for cross-examination. Learned Judge of the trial court would see that the witness Amit Verma, PW2 would not be intimidated in the garb of cross-examination. Information about