Delay Tactics Dismissed: Delhi High Court Refuses to Summon Witness in Decade-Old Rape Case.


08 April 2025 Rape >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Satish at Satbhagwan v/s The State N.C.T Of Delhi., emphasizing the expeditious disposal of long-pending trials, the Delhi High Court has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss an application seeking to summon a new defence witness in a decade-old rape and assault case. The Court found the application to be a delaying tactic, noting the accused's consistent attempts to prolong the trial.

The case originates from an FIR registered in 2013, involving allegations that the petitioner, Satish, trespassed into the prosecutrix's home, assaulted, and attempted to rape her. Charges were initially framed under Sections 451/323/376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the attempt to rape charge (Section 511 IPC) later removed after the prosecutrix's testimony. Prosecution evidence was recorded between 2016 and 2023, and defence evidence concluded in August 2024 after three defence witnesses were examined. The matter was then listed for final arguments.

 
 

The petitioner's defence revolved around claims of a friendly relationship with the prosecutrix, even after her marriage, alleging she falsely implicated him after he sought repayment of a loan from her husband. As part of his defence, he introduced a voice recording of a conversation between the prosecutrix and his wife, claiming it proved fabrication. He had previously sought directions for voice sample comparison, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on January 31, 2025.

The current petition before the High Court challenged the Trial Court's order dated March 19, 2025, which dismissed his application to summon Ms. Priyanka Sehgal as a defence witness. The petitioner claimed that the mobile number he used for extensive communication with the prosecutrix was registered in Ms. Sehgal's name, and her testimony was essential to establish the actual user of the number. He argued that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing 494 calls exchanged over three months were central to his defence, and the prosecutrix and her relatives had admitted receiving calls from this number during cross-examination.

The Trial Court, in its dismissal, had noted the case's decade-long pendency and the petitioner's history of filing "repeated applications on one ground or the other" at the stage of final arguments. It highlighted that the CDRs were available with the accused since 2014, and he was aware for over ten years that the mobile number was not registered in his name. Despite ample opportunities to lead defence evidence over five months (February to August 2024), the petitioner chose not to summon Ms. Sehgal then. The Trial Court concluded that allowing such a request at the final argument stage would be an attempt to "plug loopholes" and lead to an "unending trial," stressing that procedural law cannot be "twisted again and again just to derail the trial."

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued for an "unfettered right" to lead defence evidence and that summoning a material witness is permissible at any stage if relevant and necessary for a fair adjudication. He contended that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner, as prosecution evidence alone took over seven years.

However, the learned APP for the State opposed the petition, reiterating that it was a mere attempt to cause further delay in a trial that had been ongoing for over a decade.

The High Court, referencing Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – which is pari materia to Section 311 of CrPC – reiterated that the power to recall or summon a witness is not a matter of course. It must be exercised judiciously, cautiously, and not arbitrarily, balancing the need for a just decision with concerns of hardship to witnesses and undue trial delays.

The Court concurred with the Trial Court's assessment of the petitioner's conduct, noting the multiple previous applications at advanced stages of the trial, including attempts to recall witnesses and seek voice sample comparisons, all of which were either withdrawn or dismissed. The High Court specifically pointed out that the petitioner had possessed the CDRs since 2014 and was aware for over a decade that the mobile number was not registered in his name, yet chose not to lead evidence on this aspect earlier.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the power under Section 348 of BNSS must be exercised for legitimate purposes and not to "fill lacunas or prolong the trial proceedings unnecessarily." Finding no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's decision, the High Court dismissed the petition, thereby denying the petitioner's request to summon the new defence witness. This decision reinforces the judiciary's firm stance against tactics perceived as dilatory, especially in trials that have already consumed a significant amount of judicial time.


Section 348, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023  

Section 511., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860