The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday an appeal by a 25-year-old woman, allegedly raped by a driver of a Uber cab in Delhi, against an order to recall and examine afresh her and 12 other witnesses in the trial proceedings.
A bench led by Chief Justice H L Dattu allowed her plea to urgently list the matter after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves pleaded for an early hearing on the victim’s behalf. Gonsalves said that he would press for a stay on the Delhi High Court order which allowed the accused to recall the victim and a dozen other witnesses for testifying all over again.
“It will come tomorrow for hearing. In the meantime, correct all the defects in your petition,” the bench told Gonsalves.
- Should fast-track Uber rape case to lessen ‘undue hardship’ for victim, says SC
- Police move SC to quash Uber rape accused plea
- SC stays trial in Uber rape case
- SC suspends HC order to re-examine victim in Uber rape case
- Uber victim, 12 witnesses told to testify again
- Uber: HC reserves order on witness recall
On March 4, the High Court had allowed the plea by accused Shiv Kumar Yadav to recall the victim, investigating officers as well as some doctors who had furnished medical reports in the case. Yadav had complained that the case was proceeding at a hurried pace and that he was also not being duly represented by a counsel.
However, the appeal by the victim trashed his claims in the apex court, stating the High Court order would amount to a re-trial on a flimsy ground by the accused, causing substantial injustice to the complainant.
“The conclusion of the High Court that it is the accused alone who stands to suffer on account of the delay is totally wrong as it is the victim who suffers the most for having to go through a trial virtually from the beginning all over again,” read the petition.
Questioning as to why the High Court passed the order without giving her any opportunity to contest the claims made by the accused, the petition highlighted that she “will be put to unnecessary torture and harassment by going through the traumatised experience once again.”
It sought an immediate stay on the High Court order, saying “there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is put to such an ordeal only to be victimised repeatedly.”