Today, On 30th July, In the Shraddha Walkar murder case, the High Court has declined to issue directions regarding the accused’s request to set trial dates. The court’s decision leaves the scheduling of the trial unresolved. The accused had sought a fixed timetable for the proceedings.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, On Tuesday, declined to issue directions regarding the scheduling of trial dates in the Shraddha Walkar murder case, as requested by the accused, Aaftab Amin Poonawala. Poonawala claimed that the expedited trial proceedings prejudicial to him.
His counsel argued that the high court should instruct the trial court to examine key witnesses only when the main defence lawyer was present and to allow adequate time for preparing cross-examinations.
The defence lawyer highlighted that despite objections to the trial’s rapid pace, the trial court conducted daylong proceedings for ten days each month, which made it difficult for him to attend all witness examinations.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri addressed these concerns, stating that,
“Professional inconvenience is not a valid reason to delay the trial.”
He commended the trial court‘s efforts to schedule the matter on ten dates each month despite its heavy workload. The judge emphasized that the trial court’s schedule takes precedence, and it is up to the defense to adjust accordingly.
He 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.”
Justice Ohri did, however, acknowledge that adequate time should be given for preparing cross-examinations and advised Poonawala’s lawyer to request the trial court for such accommodations.
The defense lawyer contended that the numerous dates consumed entire days, leaving witnesses to be examined in the presence of his junior colleague. The court responded by noting that not all trials proceed at the same pace and reiterated that it is the lawyer’s responsibility to appear in the trial court.
Justice Ohri said,
“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.”
Walkar, who was in a live-in relationship with Poonawala, allegedly strangled by him on May 18, 2022. Following her death, Poonawala allegedly dismembered her body, stored the pieces in a refrigerator, and disposed of them in various locations across the city over several days to evade detection. The body parts eventually discovered.
Earlier this month, the trial court rejected Poonawala’s plea to limit the trial to two sessions per month to allow his counsel more preparation time, describing the request as a tactic to delay proceedings. The court noted that out of 212 prosecution witnesses, 134 had already been examined, and consecutive hearings essential for the examination of several outstation witnesses.
The accused, Poonawala, faces charges under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code. In May this year, a supplementary chargesheet of approximately 3,000 pages, mainly comprising digital and forensic evidence, filed.