Delhi court turns down lawyer plea against trial court judge

0
25
Delhi court, Delhi news, Daulat Ram, Suresh Kumar, Geeta Colony, plea against trial court judge, indian express

An 84-year-old attorney’s allegation that a trial judge failed to conduct a fair murder trial because the judge conducted an “inhuman” trial after 5:00 pm and a testimony was recorded in English was upheld by Junked by a court in Delhi that said the “apprehension should be reasonable and not imaginary, based on guesswork and guesswork”.

The case was recorded on a statement made by Suresh Kumar, the brother of the victim Daulat Ram, whose body was found burned in a car in Ghaziabad in 1999. The court has already convicted a person, Mohinder Pal, who had business relationships with the victim. The second defendant, Bansi Lal, is Pal’s older brother and was the Geeta Colony councilor at the time. Two other people, Harish and Harmesh, are also on trial in this case.

The case is being heard in a CBI court on Rouse Avenue. Harmesh requested a transfer of the case through his attorney. He was given bail in 2006 after claiming he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. At that point, he had applied for a six-month postponement of the trial, but a medical report found his claim to be false and his bail was voided.

Harmesh’s attorneys told the District Court and Sessions Judge, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain that this “preconceived notion and way of thinking of the trial judge seriously undermines the petitioner’s right to a fair, free trial. The court has great prejudice against the petitioner and his lawyer. “

The court was told that “the prosecutor’s witness, Suresh Kumar Mittal, submitted his deposit in Hindi but was recorded on the computer in English… The cross-examination… was closed to the petitioner without an opportunity to cross-examine, resulting in grave illegality and materiality The petitioner was prejudiced, ”the court was informed.

Harmesh’s attorney told DSJ Jain that “the court held the proceedings until 5:20 pm on December 13, 2019, which is inhuman and objectionable to the petitioner’s attorney, who is around 84 years old.”

DSJ Jain wrote in his order that “there should be no legitimate and reasonable fear of a wrong decision by the judiciary and the likelihood of bias in the mind of a defendant during the … trial”.

“However, the fear should be reasonable, not imaginary, based on guesswork and guesswork. It is one of the basic principles of a fair trial that justice is not only done, but should be considered done. The mere allegations that justice is not being done fairly and impartially is not enough … “the court said.