Punjab and Haryana High Court chides trial judge over 5-week delay in POCSO case cross-examination

Just about a month after explanation was sought from a trial judge in a POCSO case following five-week cross-examination deferral of two key prosecution witnesses – the victim and her mother, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has advised the judicial officer to remain careful in future while discharging her judicial functions.

The bench asserted that delay in a matter of such gravity amounted to a dereliction of judicial duty and reflected poorly on expeditious administration of justice. The assertions came as Justice Sumeet Goel refused to accept her explanation after observing “no pragmatic cause was shown” for adjourning the case for five weeks and the action showed “absolutely inappropriate undertaking of proceedings on the trial court’s part in a serious matter”.

Justice Goel added the explanation failed to address the core issue raised by the high court. It was evident that substantial cause had not been demonstrated in the explanation to justify unwarranted adjournment of the matter.

Justice Goel asserted: “What is required of any judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that comes to the court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves. A court speaks through its action and more so through its judgments and orders, which is the platform for communication between all the stakeholders. This should above all create a sense of confidence in the system.

Justice Goel added the courts had repeatedly been reminded to conduct proceedings in a way that instilled confidence in litigants that a ‘fair trial’ was guaranteed. A judge’s responsibility was particularly weighty, especially when a person’s life or liberty hinged on his decision. Nothing could be left to chance, doubt, or conjecture in such cases.

Justice Goel on the previous date of hearing had asked its Registrar Vigilance to seek an explanation from the trial Judge after asserting that the judicial officer apparently was undertaking the trial proceedings in “lackadaisical, nay negligent manner” and the delay appeared to contravene the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous rulings.

The matter was placed before Justice Goel after the accused filed a petition for regular bail in a case registered in November 2023 for rape and other offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act at the Mattewal police station in Amritsar district.

The accused, during the course of hearing, brought to the court’s notice the fact that the victim and her mother were examined in-chief on July 29, but the cross-examination was deferred to September 6.