The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the CBI and a trial court in Bengal over the unusual delay in recording the evidence provided by a rape victim, which it felt “could be said to have unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses”.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan said it was a “matter of grave concern” that the trial court in Bengal chose to adjourn by “four months” the recording of the rape victim’s evidence.
The bench said both the CBI and the trial court owed it an explanation, as it issued notice to the accused, Mir Usman Ali, on why the bail granted to him by Calcutta High Court should not be cancelled. The top court posted the matter for further consideration after a week.
The bench passed the direction while dealing with an appeal filed by the CBI challenging the bail granted by the high court on September 25 last year to Usman Ali and seeking its cancellation.
The apex court said: “At the relevant point of time, when the high court granted bail to the respondent, he was already in custody past three years and five months. It has been almost one year since the high court ordered the release of the respondent on bail. We heard Archana Pathak Dave, the learned additional solicitor-general appearing for the petitioner — the CBI and Anjan Datta, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.”
The court added: “We are informed that the trial court has started recording oral evidence of the witnesses. We are further informed that the victim has already stepped
into the witness box and her oral evidence is being recorded. The next date fixed by the trial court for further examination of the victim is December 18.
“We fail to understand that once the witnesses and more particularly when the victim herself has stepped into the witness box, why this examination in piecemeal? Why should the trial court adjourn the further examination of the victim for a period of four months? The trial court owes an explanation in this regard. By granting time for further examination, the trial court could be said to have unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. This is something which we should not ignore, as it is a matter of grave concern.
“Even the CBI owes an explanation, more particularly the public prosecutor in charge of the trial. Why the victim has been put in the box after a long time? The victim should have been the first witness to step into the witness box.... We grant a week to the respondent to file his counter affidavit.”