New Delhi: A lawyer representing one of the accused in the December 16 gangrape case was on Tuesday warned for his repeated failure to appear in the proceedings by a special court which said had it not been this case an "adverse order" would have been passed against him. "I am not passing an adverse order. Had it been other case then I would have done it," Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna said pointing to advocate ML Sharma, who is defending accused Mukesh.
Mukesh opted Sharma to defend him in the case on March 20, replacing advocate VK Anand, who was representing him and his brother accused Ram Singh. "He (Sharma) must understand. It cannot go on like this," the judge said, adding that due to something or other the prosecution witnesses are called and discharged without being cross-examined on his behalf.
"Prosecution witness (PW-65) cross examined on behalf of accused Akshay. However, Sharma has not appeared as yet. It is to be noted that PW-65 was examined in chief on March 28 when his cross examination was deferred as Sharma was not present, as he was in hospital having low blood pressure. None of his associates..., who signed the vakalatnama on March 19, was present either on that day. Though the court could have dispensed with the cross examination of PW-65 on that day itself due to unexplained absence of Sharma, but in interest of justice one more opportunity was granted," the judge said in his four-page order.
Mukesh is accused of involved in the gangrape of a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in New Delhi. The braveheart was also assaulted by five others, on the December 16 night in 2012. Later, the girl had succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital on December 29.
The court also noted that on April 1 also cross-examination of PW-65 was deferred as Sharma was not prepared. Meanwhile, advocate AP Singh for accused Akshay Singh and Vinay Sharma, who was present in the court, informed the judge that he had talked over phone to Sharma, who told him that the matter was pending in Supreme Court, so was unable to attend the proceedings here.
"PW-59 is also present for her cross-examination. She is to be cross examined only on behalf of accused Mukesh. She was examined in chief on March 21... But yet again Sharma was not present at that time and cross examination of this witness was deferred for today. Today the transfer petition in this very FIR is listed before the Supreme Court... so it would not be desirable to ask PW-65 and PW-59 to wait further. They are discharged for today," the judge said.
While waiting for advocate Sharma, the court even asked lawyer Singh to become amicus curiae in the case on behalf of Mukesh. However, Singh said that it would not be appropriate to do so in the absence of Mukesh's counsel.
Comments
0 comment