“Delhi HC Slams Delay Tactics in Decade-Old Rape Trial: ‘Procedural Law Cannot Be Twisted Again and Again Just to Derail the Trial’; Dismisses Plea to Recall Witness
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a trial court's decision to reject a defence application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner had sought summoning of a new witness at the final argument stage in a case pending since 2013. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's conclusion that the application was filed belatedly and would unduly prolong the trial.
The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 451, 323, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR, registered on 17.11.2013 at Police Station Kanjhawala, North-West Delhi, was based on a complaint by the prosecutrix alleging that the petitioner entered her residence at night with the intent to commit theft and attempted to rape her. He was apprehended by local residents and handed over to the police.
The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. However, upon recording the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC, further allegations led to the addition of Sections 376 and 323 IPC. The charges were eventually framed under Sections 451, 323, and 376 read with Section 511 IPC, though Section 511 was later dropped after her testimony.
Between 2016 and 2023, the prosecution recorded evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 06.12.2023 and 20.02.2024. The defence led its evidence between 27.02.2024 and 14.08.2024, examining three witnesses. The matter was then fixed for final arguments.
The petitioner contended that he and the prosecutrix had a friendly relationship, including frequent communication while her husband was away. According to the petitioner, the prosecutrix had introduced him as a friend to her husband, who had taken a loan from him. The petitioner alleged that when he demanded repayment, the prosecutrix, under her husband's instructions, called him to her home where he was beaten, and a false case was lodged against him.
A voice recording allegedly featuring a conversation between the prosecutrix and the petitioner's wife was introduced during the defence evidence, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Although the prosecutrix denied the voice was hers during cross-examination, the recording was exhibited.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam seeking directions to obtain voice samples of both women for comparison with the audio clip. This application was dismissed by the trial court on 31.01.2025.
The petitioner then moved another application under Section 348 BNSS, requesting to summon the registered owner of the mobile number used by the petitioner to communicate with the prosecutrix. He argued that the Call Detail Records (CDRs), admitted under Section 294 CrPC, showed 494 calls between his number and the prosecutrix over a three-month period, and summoning her was necessary to establish the actual user of the mobile number.
The trial court rejected the application on 19.03.2025, observing that the CDRs had been available since 2014 and the petitioner had multiple opportunities over a decade to introduce this evidence. The trial court recorded that, "after the part final arguments, when some loopholes were exposed, the accused cannot be given liberty to plug those loopholes. It will lead to unending trial of the present matter which is already pending for more than a decade."
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma examined Section 348 of BNSS, which is materially similar to Section 311 of CrPC. The provision states: "Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
The Court cited decisions of the Supreme Court, including Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. (2011) 8 SCC 136, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 2 SCC 402, and Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340, which stress that the power to summon witnesses must be exercised judiciously, considering delays and inconvenience to witnesses.
The High Court observed that the defence had been granted over seven opportunities between 27.02.2024 and 14.08.2024, during which three defence witnesses were examined. Despite having had possession of the CDRs since 2014 and being aware of the identity of the individual to whom the number was registered, the petitioner failed to act earlier.
The Court recorded, "The petitioner, undoubtedly, would have been aware from the very beginning that the mobile number which he was using...was registered not in his name but in the name of his friend despite being aware for more than a decade...the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence at the relevant stage."
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed multiple applications at the final stage of trial. An earlier application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the prosecutrix was withdrawn after it was revealed she had already been confronted with the audio recording. Another application under Section 39 BSA for voice sample collection was dismissed and not challenged further.
The High Court found no merit in the argument that summoning Ms. Sehgal was essential at this belated stage. It observed, "the power under Section 348 of BNSS (or Section 311 of Cr.P.C.) must be exercised for a legitimate and lawful purpose and not as a means to fill lacunas or prolong the trial proceedings unnecessarily."
The Court concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order dated 19.03.2025. It dismissed the petition along with the pending application. The Court stated: "Thus, considering the conduct of the petitioner, as noted above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. The petition along with pending application is accordingly dismissed."
The Court added that nothing expressed in the judgment should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Rana, Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar, Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr. Deepak Chhillar, Mr. Rahul Prashar, and Ms. Riva Rana
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Mr. Naveen Saini, Advocate
Case Title: Satish @ Satbhagwan vs. State NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2430
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2213/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9940/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
[Read/Download order]
