The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its anguish at the 37-year delay in the trial of murder of the then Railway Minister L.N. Mishra at Samastipur in Bihar and decided to examine whether this could be a ground for acquittal of the accused.
A Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad, while indicating to senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina that it would examine the larger question, expressed apprehension that if a reasoning of inordinate delay and systemic failure (in the judiciary) was advanced, it could be used in future by an intelligent accused for thwarting a trial and it would set a bad precedent.
The trial of the January 2, 1975 killing was transferred from Samastipur to Delhi in 1979 on an application moved by the then Attorney-General. The charge sheet was filed against several people including advocate Ranjan Dwivedi and Sudevananda Avadhuta. However, even after 33 years the case is yet to conclude in the sessions court.
The Bench earlier issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation, asking it to explain the delay.
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Andhyarujina said: “This is a shocking case of travesty of justice and speedy trial. How can this trial be permitted to continue when there is no end in sight? The basic right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated. What is the meaning of speedy trial, when the delay, because of systemic failure, has knocked out the aspirations of life of the accused and his whole family? Whatever the reason for the delay, whether it is on the part of the accused or on the part of the prosecution, it is a fit case for acquittal as the delay has vitiated the entire proceedings.”
Justice Dattu told counsel: “We are also anguished at the delay due to the systemic failure. We agree with you that the accused had lost their prime youth and their family life is also lost. We know in many courts it takes 20 to 25 years for a criminal trial to reach finality. But can we [Supreme Court] give a finding of acquittal on the question of delay? We would be sending a wrong signal if we do so. Maybe an intelligent accused at a later stage will delay the trial for 20 or 25 years and take advantage of our order.”
Mr. Andhyarujina replied: “An accused taking advantage of his own delay cannot be allowed to have such a benefit. This is an extraordinary case and has no parallel in the history of criminal jurisprudence in any civilised country…Which civilised society can tolerate such a system which has dragged the trial for 37 years?”
The advocate, who was 27 at the time of arrest, was now 64 and he was also a heart patient. Of the 39 witnesses he had cited to prove his innocence, 31 died and four counsel who had argued the case also died, counsel pointed out.
Additional Solicitor-General Harin Raval, appearing for the CBI, attributed the delay to the accused filing revisions and appeals, and not extending cooperation in adducing evidence.
Justice Dattu told Mr. Andhyarujina: “We can examine your plea to consider the issue on the ground of delay. But it may take some time as we may have to collect details from various courts of how many cases are pending for how many years. If you [the accused and the prosecution] agree to cooperate to complete the trial without any adjournment, we can ask the trial court to conclude the trial in three months. What we say is only tentative. You consider this and address us tomorrow [Thursday].”
