STATE Vs. VISARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fiat Justitia. Speedy trial is a part of right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. The due process and right to a speedy trial is mentioned in clause 39 and 40 of the document of English law, the Magna Carta. "Sword of Democles" should not hang over the head of the accused for an indefinite period and he is entitled to be relieved from the travail of the prosecution. Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. The trial should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure to achieve the goal of justice. In Hussainara Khatoon Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1379, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, "Even a day of one year in the commencement of trial is bad enough how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 5 or 7 or even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice." In Kadra Pehadiya Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939, it was held that speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the constitution. In Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the right of a speedy trial is one of the dimensions of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21. In Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Delhi (2000) 4 SCC 178, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a criminal appeal is continuation of trial. In Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1630. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 is available to accused at all stages including the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial and appeal. Undue delay may result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. In Imtiyaj Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2012) 2 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that long delay has the effect of blatant violation of rule of law and adverse impact on access to justice which is fundamental right. Denial of this right undermines public confidence in justice delivery.

(2.) In the instant matter the incident in question is of the year 1987. Against the judgment and order dated 29.03.1990 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.333 of 1989, State Vs. Visarat and 10 others, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted from the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324 all read with Section 149 of IPC, the Criminal Appeal, by way of sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), was preferred before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court granted permission and admitted this Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 1990 vide Order dated 08.07.1992.

(3.) On 13.12.2017, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed that in respect of the lower court record, the report was received that only 43 pages of the judgment is available and other papers have been weeded out on 25.04.2012. The appeal is pending since 1990. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court further observed that since the matter pertains to District Haridwar, hence this Court had now no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the District Haridwar falls within the State of Uttarakhand, which had been carved out in the year 2000. Therefore, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has passed Order that in the interest of justice the entire record of the case along with the lower court record be transmitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital within one month.