2001 (3) TMI 1046 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court directs prompt witness examination for expeditious trials

STATE OF U.P. Versus SHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND ORS.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and directed the trial court to proceed with the examination of witnesses, emphasizing ... - Issues Involved:1. Witness Examination Delays2. Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence3. High Court's Refusal to Grant Leave to Appeal4. Compliance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSummary:Witness Examination Delays:Witnesses in India often face significant delays in being examined in court, leading to substantial personal and financial inconvenience. The trial courts should treat witnesses as guests invited to assist in judicial findings, but often witnesses suffer more than the litigants. In this case, witnesses attended court on multiple occasions but were not fully examined, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to lack of evidence. The court highlighted the need for trial courts to reform this practice and ensure witnesses are examined promptly.Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence:Nine respondents were charged with murder, attempt to murder, and rioting. Despite the presence of key witnesses, including PW-1 Jiyawoo, the trial court repeatedly adjourned the case, leading to the eventual acquittal of the accused due to lack of evidence. The trial judge suspected collusion between the police and the accused, noting that the prosecution had failed to produce witnesses despite being given 45 dates over five years.High Court's Refusal to Grant Leave to Appeal:The State of U.P. sought leave to appeal against the acquittal, but the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad refused, stating briefly that there were no grounds for interference. The Supreme Court criticized this decision, emphasizing that the trial court's failure to comply with legal mandates had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.Compliance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:Section 309 of the Code mandates that trials should be conducted expeditiously and that once witness examination begins, it should continue day-to-day until all witnesses are examined. The trial court in this case failed to adhere to this mandate, leading to unnecessary adjournments and the eventual acquittal of the accused. The Supreme Court stressed that trial courts must follow this legislative mandate and that High Courts should monitor compliance and take administrative action against judges who violate this requirement.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and directed the trial court to proceed with the examination of PW-1 and other witnesses. The case was to be disposed of in accordance with the law, ensuring compliance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.