15 July 2024 Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The judicial system in India is frequently challenged by issues of prolonged delays and suspected political influence, particularly in high-profile cases. A recent case of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, underscores these problems, highlighting how influential figures can experience significant delays, obstructing justice and raising concerns about fairness and impartiality.

Background:

The appeal in question arises from an order issued by the Allahabad High Court on July 18, 2023. The order involved a batch of criminal revision petitions linked to a 1994 double murder case. The case initially saw a trial court order allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against one accused, Chhote Singh, but rejecting similar requests for nine other accused individuals. In 1994, an FIR was registered by Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, the complainant, against several individuals, including Chhote Singh, for a violent incident involving double murder and attempted murder. Over time, Chhote Singh, who later became a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), received a government order in 2008 permitting the withdrawal of prosecution against him. Despite this, the trial court's decision was challenged in criminal revision petitions. The petitions, which included challenges from both the accused and the victim’s family, were adjourned multiple times by the High Court. These delays extended the trial process, with hearings postponed for up to 12 years.

Key Issues Highlighted:

The prolonged delay in the trial and the alleged influence of political power played a crucial role in the case's stagnation. Chhote Singh's political status was cited as a reason for allowing the withdrawal of prosecution, raising concerns about the fairness of this decision. The High Court's repeated adjournments contributed to further delays, affecting the victims and the overall justice system.

Court’s Findings:

The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, found that the Trial Court’s decision to permit the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was unjustified. The reasoning provided was insufficient, as it relied on Singh’s political status rather than substantial legal grounds. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's delays had exacerbated the situation, allowing the accused to use tactics to prolong the trial indefinitely.

Directions and Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling was decisive. It overturned the Trial Court’s order allowing Chhote Singh's prosecution to be withdrawn and directed the High Court to expedite the resolution of the criminal revision petitions. The High Court was instructed to retain only necessary Trial Court records and return the original records to expedite the ongoing trial, which had been pending for nearly three decades. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to address the delay caused by both the political influence and procedural adjournments, emphasizing the need for timely justice and fair judicial proceedings.

The case highlights systemic issues within the judicial process, especially concerning high-profile individuals and their ability to influence proceedings. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the need for reform to prevent delays and ensure that justice is not compromised by political power or other extraneous factors.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973