The Supreme Court of India, in their recent judgment by the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra expressed concern over the ineffective cross-examination conducted by public prosecutors. The case, Criminal Appeal of 2015, involved an appeal by Anees against his conviction for the murder of his wife.
The judgment highlighted the importance of effective cross-examination in criminal trials. Justices stated, “Over a period of time, we have noticed while hearing criminal appeals, that there is practically no effective and meaningful cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor of a hostile witness.”
The case concerned Anees, the appellant, and his wife Saira's murder. Anees was found guilty in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of stabbing his wife to death. Shaheena, the couple's five-year-old daughter, was the only person to see what happened.
Shaheena became combative during the trial, and the public prosecutor's cross-examination was unable to extract vital information. The ruling stated, "In this case, following Shaheena (PW-3)'s declaration of hostileness, the public prosecutor's only action was to present her with a few recommendations for cross-examination. Remarkably, not even appropriate contradictions were documented.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Rishi Malhotra, while Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, and Apoorv Kurup, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mani Munjal, Vinayak Sharma, and Raman Yadav, represented the State.
The judgment referred to several legal precedents to emphasize the importance of effective cross-examination. It cited cases such as Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, and Ram Gulam Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar.
Furthermore, the judgment underscored the responsibility of the trial judge in ensuring a fair trial. “The trial judge also failed to play an active role in the present case. The judge should have been conscious of the fact that Shaheena (PW-3) was asked to depose in the open court in a charged atmosphere and that too in the presence of the accused who was none other than her own father,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.
In addition to highlighting the deficiencies in the trial, the judgment also examined the appellant’s claim for the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court rejected the appellant’s claim, stating, “The present case is not one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but the same is a case of murder. The appellant inflicted as many as twelve blows with a knife on the deceased who was unarmed and helpless.”
However, considering the appellant’s circumstances, the court granted him the liberty to prefer a representation to the State Government for the remission of sentence. “In the facts of this case, more particularly keeping in mind the mitigating circumstances…we grant liberty to the appellant to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the State Government praying for the remission of sentence,” the judgment concluded.
Case Name: ANEES vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2015
Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Order Dated: 03.5.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
