TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Speedy Trial Right, Issues Timely Judgment Guidelines</h1> <h3>ANIL RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR</h3> The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely judgments, reaffirming the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It issued ... Order - Delay in pronouncement - High Court pronouncing judgment two years after conclusion of arguments - Conviction on murder charge by Sessions Court on 4-5-1991 - Arguments concluded on 23-8-1995 in appeal in High Court - Judgment pronounced on 14-8-1997 - Shocking state of affairs in some High Courts - Chief Justices of High Courts to issue guidelines as directed to avoid delay in pronouncement of judgments. Issues Involved:1. Delay in Pronouncing Judgments2. Right of Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution3. Impact of Delay on Litigant Rights4. Guidelines for Pronouncement of Judgments5. Merits of the Criminal AppealsDetailed Analysis:1. Delay in Pronouncing JudgmentsThe Supreme Court addressed the 'shocking state of affairs' in some High Courts where judgments are not pronounced for years after arguments are concluded. Specifically, in this case, the High Court reserved judgment on 23-8-1995 and pronounced it only on 14-8-1997. This delay was deemed to infringe upon the right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which necessitates a 'fair and reasonable procedure.' The Court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, and justice withheld is worse.2. Right of Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the ConstitutionThe Supreme Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court cited various precedents, including Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the right of appeal in a criminal case is fundamental to civilized jurisprudence. The Court condemned delays caused by reasons not attributable to the litigant, the State, or the legal profession, emphasizing that such delays are against the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice none).3. Impact of Delay on Litigant RightsThe Court noted that delays in pronouncing judgments shake the confidence of litigants in the judicial system. It referenced the Arrears Committee's recommendation that reserved judgments should be pronounced within six weeks and, if delayed beyond three months, should be reassigned or delivered in open court. The Court also highlighted the legislative intent in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which implies that judgments should be pronounced without undue delay.4. Guidelines for Pronouncement of JudgmentsThe Court issued specific guidelines to mitigate delays:- Chief Justices should direct that reserved judgments include the dates of reservation and pronouncement.- Monthly lists of cases with reserved judgments should be furnished.- If a judgment is not pronounced within two months, the Chief Justice should remind the concerned Bench.- Parties can file applications for early judgment if not pronounced within three months.- If delayed beyond six months, parties can request the Chief Justice to reassign the case.5. Merits of the Criminal AppealsThe appeals were against the High Court's judgment confirming the conviction and sentence of seven out of nine accused for offenses under Sections 302 and 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants argued that the testimony of inimical witnesses should not be relied upon without corroboration and pointed to alleged delays in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The Court found no merit in these arguments, emphasizing that enmity is a double-edged weapon and does not automatically discredit witness testimony.The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Avinash Chand Rai (A-1) and Subhash Chand Rai (A-2) based on consistent and convincing eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons, and medical evidence. However, it found that the other accused (A-3 to A-7) did not share the common object of causing death and modified their conviction to Section 148 IPC, sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment.The Court also extended the benefit of altered conviction and sentence to Satya Narain (A-7), whose special leave petition had been dismissed for procedural reasons.ConclusionThe Supreme Court's judgment addressed both procedural delays in the judicial system and the merits of the criminal appeals. It established guidelines to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments, reinforcing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court upheld the convictions of the primary accused while modifying the sentences of others, ensuring justice in line with the evidence presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
