In a landmark judgment aimed at upholding the integrity of witness protection and judicial efficiency, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has restricted the accused’s right to further cross-examine a prosecutrix, stating that repeated adjournments for cross-examination create a “harassing environment” for witnesses. Justice G. S. Ahluwalia, presiding over Tulsi Ram Lodhi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 43730 of 2024), highlighted the misuse of procedural delays, which, he stressed, “compromises the justice system, burdens witnesses, and threatens the concept of a fair trial.”
Case Background
The application arose from a dispute over an order issued on March 6, 2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, Raisen District, which had closed the accused’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix following a pattern of adjournment requests. Tulsi Ram Lodhi, the applicant, represented by Advocate Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur, contended that his inability to cross-examine the prosecutrix would result in irreparable prejudice to his defense. The State’s representation argued against further deferments, citing undue delays and intimidation of the prosecutrix.
On February 9, 2024, the prosecutrix was initially examined by the prosecution. Although the defense was present, it sought an adjournment, claiming that it required additional information to prepare adequately. The judge granted the request on condition that the defense covers costs for the prosecutrix’s attendance. However, the defense later refused to comply with this stipulation, prompting the trial court to close the cross-examination phase.
Key Legal Issues and Court Observations
1. Adjournments as a Tool of Harassment: Justice Ahluwalia observed that recurrent adjournments for cross-examination, particularly in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, amount to harassment. The judge emphasized that such delays are often used to exhaust or intimidate witnesses, thus subverting the justice system. Citing previous rulings, he reinforced that excessive adjournments compromise the ability of witnesses to testify fairly, affecting their mental and emotional well-being. “Justice cannot be a game of endurance; it is to be served promptly and fairly,” the court noted.
2. Section 309 of the CrPC and the Right to a Speedy Trial: The court underscored the mandate of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which envisions trials to proceed without undue delays, especially once witness examination has commenced. This section stipulates that adjournments should only be granted under “special reasons” that must be recorded in writing. The court referenced Supreme Court rulings which affirm that trials, particularly in sensitive cases, should proceed day-to-day to uphold the credibility and integrity of witness testimonies. Justice Ahluwalia quoted that “delays in cross-examinations defy both the statutory mandate and the public’s right to timely justice.”
3. Cost Sanctions for Unnecessary Delays: In a firm stance on accountability, the High Court supported the trial court’s imposition of cost-bearing on the defense for adjournments. Justice Ahluwalia observed that the costs serve as a deterrent to misuse of adjournment requests. Highlighting that witnesses often bear financial and emotional burdens due to repeat appearances, the court emphasized that justice systems must protect witnesses from avoidable hardships caused by procedural tactics.
Court’s Decision
Upholding the trial court’s decision to restrict the cross-examination rights of the accused, the High Court emphasized that Lodhi’s counsel’s conduct warranted closing the opportunity to cross-examine. Justice Ahluwalia stated, “Where the defense counsel repeatedly obstructs proceedings under the guise of preparation, it is not the justice system but the prosecutrix who suffers.”
