The Supreme Court of India on Monday came down heavily on delays in rape trials, criticizing the manner in which a key witness the victim herself was left waiting months for her cross-examination. The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan directed that the trial must now move forward without adjournments, stressing that justice delayed amounts to justice denied.
Background
The case arose after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the bail granted to accused Mir Usman, also known as Ara. He had already spent more than three years in custody before the Calcutta High Court granted him bail in September 2024. For the past year, he has been out, while the trial has barely progressed.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Refuses to Cancel Bail in Case Alleging Rape on False Promise of Marriage
The CBI urged the apex court to cancel the bail, arguing that prolonged hearings and adjournments allowed room for the accused to influence witnesses. But the Court refused to interfere with the bail, choosing instead to focus on expediting the trial itself.
Court's Observations
During arguments, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave informed the Court that the prosecution still intended to examine around 30 witnesses. The bench was unimpressed.
"We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape," the judges observed, cautioning that multiplying witnesses serves little purpose if the core facts are already established.
Read also:- Gauhati High Court overturns rape conviction after DNA test proves accused not father of victim’s child
The justices were particularly disturbed by the trial court's decision to adjourn the victim’s cross-examination by four months. As the bench remarked,
"Why should the trial court adjourn the further examination of the victim by such a long period? By granting time, the court could be said to have unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. This is a matter of grave concern."
The trial judge from Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, later explained that the adjournment was necessitated because the victim fell ill during her testimony. However, the Court was clear: once evidence has begun, it must continue day to day.
Legal Position
The judgment relied heavily on Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates continuous hearings once witness examination starts. The bench cited earlier rulings, pointing out how adjournments are often misused. In sharp words, the order reminded lower courts:
"If a witness is present in court, he must be examined on that day. Adjournments on flimsy grounds are an affront to fair trial."
The judges also recalled past warnings from the apex court, where delaying tactics were described as nothing less than a "mockery of trial."
Decision
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to cancel the accused's bail but set strict deadlines. The trial court has been directed to complete the victim’s cross-examination on October 24, 2025, immediately after the Puja vacation. Thereafter, all remaining witnesses must be examined without breaks. Importantly, the Court fixed December 31, 2025 as the deadline for the trial court to deliver its judgment.
The order concluded firmly:
"The trial must proceed expeditiously and only important witnesses should be examined. The Registry shall circulate this order to all High Courts so that similar practices are curbed across the country."
With that, the petition was disposed of. The accused remains on bail but bound by strict conditions, while the trial court now faces close scrutiny from the top court to ensure compliance.
Case Title: The Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 969 of 2025
