#SupremeCourt raps Uber rape case accused for seeking recall of witnesses

Coming down heavily on the Uber cabrape case accused Shiv Kumar Yadav for seeking recall of witnesses including the victim to examine them afresh in the trial court, the Supreme Court on Thursday said “if the court agrees with your suggestion, the entire criminal justice system will be destroyed.”

“She (victim) was called for cross-examination. You humiliated her, insulted her and embarrassed her for three days and again you want she should undergo the same,” a bench headed by Justice J S Khehar said and reserved the order on victim’s plea that she should not be put to torturous experience by being cross examined again in the case.

The court asked Yadav’s lawyer to show the law which allows the accused to claim his right to re-call the victim on the ground that the he has engaged a new counsel for the trial of his case.

Even countering the arguments placed by Yadav’s counsel to defend his client, the bench said, “You are making it impossible to convict the guilty. You can’t go on endlessly. You are in a way suggesting us to destroy the entire judicial system.”

Appearing for Delhi Police, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi also submitted that the Delhi High Court order should be quashed.

In the day-long proceeding, the court was hearing arguments on the plea of the 26-year-old rape victim who challenged the Delhi high court order of March 4 allowing the accused to recall 13 witnesses including the victim. She had pleaded that she should not be put to unnecessary torture and harassment by going through the traumatic experience of being cross-examined all over again.

Earlier, the court had stayed the high court order.

The victim said in her petition that the high court had passed the order without making her a party. “The order is unconstitutional and in breach of the principles regarding recall and re-examination under section 311 of CrPC. It causes substantial injustice to the complainant and goes against the very principles of speedy trial and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013,” she mentioned in her petition.

She said the high court allowed recall of witnesses despite finding no fault in the manner in which the trial was conducted. “The conclusion of the high court that it is the accused alone who stands to suffer on account of the delay is wrong as it is the victim who suffers the most for having to go through a trial virtually from the beginning, all over again,” the petition said.

The accused Yadav, had first moved the trial court for recall of witnesses after he changed his lawyer. His plea was rejected by the court which observed that it was only an attempt on his party to prolong the trial.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of December 5 last year when the woman, a finance executive working in Gurgaon, was heading back home. Police said the woman had taken the taxi from Vasant Vihar to return to her house in Inderlok area of north Delhi, and the accused, who took another route, allegedly raped her.