Delhi High Court (ANI)
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to pass directions to a court here with respect to the fixing of dates in the Shraddha Walker murder case, after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala claimed that the "haste" in the trial was causing prejudice to him.
Poonawala's counsel urged the high court to ask the trial court to examine the crucial witnesses only in the presence of the main defence lawyer and also grant him sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination.
The lawyer submitted that in spite of his objections with respect to the "speed", the daylong proceedings were held for 10 days in a month and he was unable to attend the examination of witnesses.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said "professional inconvenience" cannot be a ground to delay the trial and it was commendable that the trial court listed the matter on 10 dates in a month despite the workload on it.
"You will adjust according to the trial court's convenience and the trial court will not adjust to your convenience. In exceptional cases, sometimes they may…. Look at the pressure on trial courts. It is a case where they are going at proper speed but you want that they should adjust their diary according to your diary," the court remarked.
"It is the best record that I can see. In a short span, they have recorded 120 witnesses…. You want crucial witnesses to be examined in your presence. It is not that the trial court will wait for you. You have to be present before the trial court…. Make yourself available," it added.
The court, however, orally observed that sufficient time has to be given to prepare for the cross-examination of witnesses and asked Poonawala's lawyer to request the trial court in this regard.
Poonawala's counsel said it was impossible to accommodate on so many dates when the "whole day is taken up" and the witnesses were being examined in the presence of his junior colleague.
The court retorted that all trials do not proceed at the same pace and it was up to the lawyer to appear in the trial court.
"You cannot request the high court to tell the trial court that please grant dates according to the lawyer…. If the trial court is giving 10 dates in a month, that is commendable. If it is causing inconvenience to you, that cannot be the reason to push the dates," Justice Ohri said.
"Nobody is taking away that right (to appear at the time of examination of witnesses). It is your inconvenience that you are at three different places. Examination and cross-examination are the most crucial aspects of a trial and you cannot say that the court should not fix quick dates," the judge added.
Walkar, who was in a live-in relationship with Poonawala, was allegedly strangulated to death by the accused on May 18, 2022.
According to the 6,629-page chargesheet filed in the case by the Delhi Police in January last year, Poonawala allegedly dismembered her body, kept the chopped body parts in a refrigerator and disposed those of in desolate places across the city over several days to avoid getting caught. The body parts were found later.
Earlier this month, the trial court dismissed Poonawala's plea seeking that the trial be held only twice a month to give suitable time to his counsel to prepare his defence, holding that the request appeared to be "only a tool to protract and delay the trial".
The trial court had said of the 212 prosecution witnesses, 134 were examined and consecutive hearings were necessary for the examination of several outstation witnesses.