ZOHMINGLIANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE 1977 the petitioner is in jail in connection with a criminal case. Now in 1983 the Government of Mizoram has become slightly ambulatory in submitting charge -sheet and to commence the trial. The petitioner is in jail for over 6 years. There cannot be any alibi for non -completion of the investigation for so many years. There cannot be any excuse as to why the case could not be disposed so long. The petitioner is in jail for over 6 years.

(2.) WHAT we find from the materials made available to us is that the only evidence appearing against the accused is the confession of the co -accused, as the petitioner states. We are confident that the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, is fully aware as to the evidentiary value of the confession of a co -accused. We refer to (1) Kashmira Singh, AIR 1952 SC 159: (1952 Cri LJ 839. (2) Kalawati, AIR 1953 SC 131 : (1953 Cri LJ 668), (3) Nathu, AIR 1956 SC 56 (58) : (1956 Cri LJ 152 (154) (4) Ramchandra. AIR 1957 SC 381: (1957 Cri LJ 559), (5) AIR 1968 SC 832 : (1968 Cri LJ 1017). Haroon Haji Abdullah v. State of Maharashtra, as some of the important decisions in point. The confession of an accused can only be used for leading assurance to other evidence against the accused. On the basis of a confession of a co -accused alone a conviction is not sustainable. What the State contends is that in support of the confession of the co -accused there are other circumstantial evidence. We are confident that the trial Court shall duly consider the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court. We were about to pass an order directing the release of the accused -petitioner on bail with certain restriction or constrictions or conditions, however, Dr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Govt. of Mizoram assures us that the trial shall be completed very soon. Accordingly we direct that the trial of the accused must be concluded within a period of 2 months.

(3.) AT this stage, Dr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Mizoram produces a W. T. Message received by him in Court sent by the Govt. of Mizoram stating that the petitioner had once jumped bail and absconded in Manipur and brought to Aizawl on 9 -8 -1982. It is stated that, thereafter, the petitioner did not file any application for bail. It appears that the accused is also responsible for the delay. Further, he jumped bail and left the Union Territory of Mizoram. Under these circumstances, the learned Addl. District Magistrate shall consider his application for bail with great care and circumspection.