SUSHIL SHARMA Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The awareness of what is happening around in the society to a great extent is the work-force of journalists. Mature investigative journalism helps in unearthing many skeletons Democratic institutions are surviving, thanks to the eternal vigilance of the journalists. But for journalists also there is code of conduct and ethical norms. The task to keep restraint in pending matters is expected more from the investigating and prosecuting agencies. Similarly the Judge dealing with sensitive and important matters have to exercise due restraint in their utterances. It is rightly said that the Judge speak through their judgments only keeping this dictum in mind, we have to see as to what is the grievance of this petitioner.

(2.) Sushil Sharma is facing murder trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. He has felt aggrieved because according to him the news items appearing in the Press and the electronic media having reported the Naina Sahni murder case in such a fashion that it has not only coloured the public opinion but also arouse public passions against him. So much so the senior police officials by their utterances published in the Press have prejudged his case thereby holding him guilty. In fact by doing so, a parallel public trial has been held against him thereby declaring him guilty of the charge of murder of Naina Sahni. The Additional Commissioner of Police Maxwell Periera has gone on record to say that he was possessed of sufficient material to hang the petitioner. Because of these statements by the officials of the Investigating Agency and senior police officials made in the Press/electronic media, the petitioner can not expect fair trial. In view of surcharged atmosphere prevailing against him, he wants either the trial he postponed or he be discharged. In any case contempt proceedings be initiated against all those who are responsible for lowering the dignity of the Court by interfering in the Administration of Justice by publishing these news items.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner we may have quick glance to the relevant facts of this case. As per prosecution story on 2nd July, 1995 gruesome murder. of Naina Sahni took place in her Gole Market. flat. She was shot at and thereafter the culprits with the intention to destroy the evidence tried to burn her body in the Tandoor of Bagiya Restaurant at Ashok Yatri Niwas. But unfortunately for them, the flames coming from the Tandoor were seen by Smt. Anguri Devi. She raised he and cry. The Beat Constable got alerted and he retrieved the charred body of Naina Sahni from the Tandoor. After investigation, the prosecution registered the case against the petitioner and others. Petitioner is booked on the charged of murder of Naina Sahni and others have been charged for destruction of evidence and har bouring a criminal. In the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. filed by the prosecution, the petitioner has been named as 'Killer'. Further details have been furnished regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner at the time of incident and thereafter and also where he went after fleeing from Delhi. At this moment, we are not concerned with these details nor with the allegations or involvement of each of the accused persons. Suffice it to say, that after collecting the evidence including that of the experts, the prosecution presented the. challan in Court on 28th July 1995. The Metropolitan Magistrate after completing the proceedings committed the case to the Court of Session on 31st August, 1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took up the case for hearing the arguments on charge. It is at this stage that the petitioner presented two applications thereby seeking the relief of postponement or dropping of the proceedings against him on the ground that in the prevalent atmosphere with emotions having been aroused by the media he could not expect fair trial. According to him, the Investigating Agency was hell bent upon fixing him though he is an innocent person. The mind of the general public has been poisoned against him. Because of the parallel trial by the Press thereby dubbing his as Tandoor Killer, his apprehension of not getting fair trial has been fortified. The reason of not exception fair trial is based on the following surmises; (i) It is the only case in which the chargesheet has been. presenad within 25 days of the alleged offence. (ii) It has happened for the first time in the history of administration of criminal justice that in such a serious. offence of murder, the Investigating Agency rushed through the investigation without even recording the statement of deceased relations and waiting for experts report, (iii) Moreover, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner and to show anxiety, the investigating agency obtained two postmortem reports, (iv) That the witnesses of the alleged occurrence were publically awarded by political parties before consideration of charge and even before commencement of the trial, (v) In order to rush through the case proper investigation has not been done.