Witness examination must be day-to-day without long adjournments

2025 INSC 1155

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman (2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Order Date: 22 September 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case Analysis

• The respondent, Mir Usman, was an accused in a rape case.
• He had been in custody for 3 years and 5 months.
• In September 2024, the High Court granted him bail.
• The CBI challenged this order in the Supreme Court, seeking cancellation of bail.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Delay in Trial Proceedings
   • The victim had entered the witness box for cross-examination.
   • During her testimony, she suddenly fell ill, and the trial court adjourned the case for four months.
   • The Supreme Court expressed concern that such long adjournments may allow the accused to influence or tamper with witnesses.
2. Explanation from the Trial Court
   • The trial judge explained that the adjournment was due to:
     • The victim’s sudden illness.
     • Heavy pendency of cases (NDPS, corruption, murder, civil cases).
     • Durga Puja vacation in West Bengal courts.
   • However, the next date was preponed to 24 October 2025 for continuation of the victim’s testimony.
3. Number of Witnesses
   • Initially, the prosecution wanted to examine 60 witnesses.
   • Later, this was reduced to 30 witnesses.
   • The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating:
     • “Quality of evidence matters, not the quantity.”
     • Multiplying unnecessary witnesses only delays trials.

Legal Principles Discussed

1. Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS, 2023):
   • Trials should proceed day-to-day once witness examination begins.
   • In rape cases, trials should be completed within 2 months of filing the charge sheet.
   • Adjournments can be given only for special reasons recorded in writing.
2. Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution:
   • Speedy trial is a fundamental right of every accused as well as in the interest of justice.
   • Delayed trials cause:
     • Witnesses to become hostile, tired, or influenced.
     • Violation of fair trial principles.
   • The Court cited several precedents:
     • Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) – speedy trial is part of Article 21.
     • A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) – right to speedy trial extends to all stages.
     • Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) – adjournments should not be routine.

Supreme Court’s Directions

1. Bail Not Cancelled
   • Since the accused was already on bail for one year, the Court refused to send him back to custody.
2. Trial Timeline Fixed
   • Victim’s cross-examination to be completed on 24 October 2025.
   • Trial to proceed day-to-day without unnecessary adjournments.
   • Final judgment to be delivered by 31 December 2025.
3. Instructions to High Courts
   • Issue circulars to all trial courts to ensure:
     • No adjournments without special reasons.
     • Witnesses present in court must be examined on the same day.
     • Lawyer’s personal inconvenience is not a valid reason for adjournment.
     • If defence counsel delays intentionally →
       • Bail of accused may be cancelled.
       • Costs may be imposed.
       • Court may appoint amicus curiae.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court refused to cancel bail but gave strong directions to ensure the trial is not delayed any further.
• The Court emphasized that:
  • Speedy trial = Fundamental Right under Article 21.
  • Serious offences like rape must not be tried in a piecemeal manner.
  • Courts must strictly follow Section 309 CrPC and avoid adjournments.

Takeaway in One Line:
The Supreme Court upheld the accused’s bail but directed that the rape trial must proceed day-to-day and conclude by 31 December 2025, reinforcing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.