NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court slammed the petition by the Uber rape case accused to recall the witnesses for a re-examination before upbraiding him sternly, while reserving its verdict on the appeal by the victim. The bench headed by Justice J S Kheher was hearing a plea filed by the victim against the High Court decision in March, which had allowed a re-examination of witnesses then, since the accused had appointed a new counsel.

The Apex Court took quite seriously the delaying tactics of the accused and said that he was “trying to destroy the judicial system.” The Bench said to the accused counsel, “you are in a way trying to destroy the criminal justice system of this country. You are saying let this person sit on our head. You are trying to say that the criminal should be honored and he should get everything he wants.”

During the observation, the Bench made remarks about the victim’s humiliating and torturous experience during the three days cross-examination earlier when the accused was allowed to question her.

“For three days, you only embarrassed her. You only insulted her. We feel you have all nonsense at your hand. For three days what did you do, except humiliate the prosecutrix who made the allegations?” noted the court.

Mukul Rohtagi, the attorney general, appearing for Delhi Police, too supported the SC observation and pleaded that HC order be quashed.

The court understood the re-examination plea by accused as a tactic by a “seasoned criminal” who is also an accused in three other rape cases. The 32 year old Shiv Kumar Yadav is a native of UP and known to be a notorious character there. He has also spent some time in Tihar jail in a rape case before he was acquitted.

“He is not a novice. This accused has faced criminal trials earlier. There are three rape cases, including the present one, against him. In addition to these, there are several other cases in Uttar Pradesh. The idea is to show that the accused is familiar with the court proceedings,” Rohtagi said.

Earlier, the 26 year victim in her petition had written that "The order is unconstitutional and in breach of the principles regarding recall and re-examination under section 311 of CrPC. It causes substantial injustice to the complainant and goes against the very principles of speedy trial and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013."

She also found faults in the way HC allowed the re-examination of the witnesses, all 12 of them, without making her a party to the decision. She tried to bring to court’s notice her nightmarish experience as a victim which she faced during the trial and how allowing the same all over again would be tortuous to her.

“The conclusion of the high court that it is the accused alone who stands to suffer on account of the delay is wrong as it is the victim who suffers the most for having to go through a trial virtually from the beginning, all over again." She wrote in the petition.

In the month of December last year, the accused, a driver for Uber Cab Company, had raped the 26 year old finance executive when she was returning in his cab to her home in Inderlok from Vasant Vihar in South Delhi. She had been taken to a secluded stretch near Inderlok and had been raped there at knife’s edge.