SC stays Delhi HC order, trial in Uber rape case

The Supreme Court here on Tuesday stayed the March 4 Delhi High Court order permitting the repeat cross-examination of the Delhi Uber rape case victim and other witnesses by accused Shiv Kumar Yadav.

The court also stayed the trial court proceedings in the case.

While staying the high court order and the trial court proceedings, the apex court bench of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde directed the evidence recorded in the wake of re-examination of victim and other witnesses after the high court order to be kept in a sealed cover.

Having stayed the proceedings in the case, the court issued notice to Delhi Police and accused Uber driver Yadav.

The court gave them two weeks to respond to the plea by the victim challenging the Delhi High Court order permitting recall of witnesses and their re-examination.

The court order came on a plea by the Delhi Uber rape case victim who has challenged the March 4 Delhi High Court order permitting the recall and re-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses -- including the victim herself -- by the accused driver after he changed his lawyer.

The victim has challenged the high court order of March 4 that partially allowed accused driver Shiv Kumar Yadav to recall some of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, for further cross-examination.

Challenging the high court order, the victim contended that the conclusion of the high court that it was Yadav who alone stood to suffer on account of delay, was totally wrong -- as it was the victim who suffers the most for having to go through a trial virtually from the beginning all over again.

The victim wondered how could the trial court and the high court "abruptly jump to the conclusion that recall and re-examination of witnesses was necessary".

The petitioner contended that the high court order was "unconstitutional and in breach of the principles regarding recall and re-examination" of the witnesses.

Allowing Yadav's plea partially, the high court had imposed some conditions that stipulated that the cross-examination of witnesses would be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

Further, Yadav's counsel would not repeat any question which has already been put to the witnesses in their cross-examination, and no adjournment would be sought on any ground in the case.

"Needless to say, it is impressed upon the learned counsel for the petitioner (Yadav) not to repeat any question which has already been put to the witnesses in their cross-examination by the earlier counsel," the high court had said.

The high court had further clarified that "in case for any reason any witness is not available for the purpose of further cross-examination, his/her testimony shall be read in evidence as it is".