STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. BHAGWAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference under Rule 30 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). Legal points apart relating to conviction and sentence of the accused, this reference also raises several other questions, having a vital bearing on the Administration of Justice in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, where the judiciary has not yet been separated from the executive. In face of Article 50 of the Constitution, which provides that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State, the evil effects of the system prevailing in the State is permanently reflected in this reference, to take only one illustration, the trial of the accused who was all along in custody ewer since the date of his arrest on 30th August, 1986, continued and lasted till 8 2.94 almost 71/2 years, that too in face of the apex Court's pronouncement that speedy trial is the right of an accused, laying down the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. It appears that the authorities on whom the power to draw criminal cases is conferred are blessingly oblivious or ignorant of mis law of the land. A mere glance at the order sheets drawn by the trial Court would go to show as to how conveniently and confortably the trial proceeded.

(2.) In face of the provisions for day to day trial of Sessions Cases, as contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, there can be no justification for in such prolonged, procrastinated trial lasting over almost 8 years. Coming to the facts of the case, the prosecution story stated in brief was that the house of the accused- a Peon in the Public Works Department of the State, was found to be locked for two days on 28th and 29th of August, 1986. Arousing suspicion in the mind of the neighbours which ultimately impelled one of them, to knock at the door only to find to his surprise that it was bolted from inside and there was no response either to the knocking or to the calls. Shri N.C. Deka, P.W.-8, a Head Constable attached to the local police station, situated hardly within a radius of few hundred yards, reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station who in his turn, proceeded to the spot and claims to have arranged for opening the door which was bolted from inside by asking one Shri Mangaleswar Rawat, P.W.-4 to get into the house through ventilator, who accordingly entered and opened the main door. It is prosecution's case that the door of the bed room was also bolted from inside which had to be broken up, and before gaining entry to the house it was also ascertained that all other doors and windows were properly latched. It was in the bed room that three dead bodies, that of Purnima, wife of the accused; Pappu, aged about 3 years, son of the accused and Been, about 8 months, were done to death. They were bleeding from incised wound inflicted upon them. The accused himself was lying unconscious with heavy breathing while the other three were dead. He was rushed to the * local hospital from where he was shifted to the District Hospital at Along. Inquests were held on the dead body, certain incriminating articles, such as , dao' and broken pieces of glass were recovered from the place of occurrence. Returning to the Police Station, the Officer-in-Charge himself lodged an 'ejahar,' Ext. 10 on the basis of which a case under Section 302 as also under Section 304 IPC was registered. On completion of investigation the accused was charge-sheeted and tried for the above offence.

(3.) Since the accused was unrepresented, initially Mr. K.K. Mahanta was appointed amicus curiae but when the reference came up for hearing on 17.1.96 it had to be adjourned for want of representation. It was on 22.1.96 the case again came up for hearing and the amicus curiae appointed was not available. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, Advocate, who was present in the Court, on request accepted to act as an amicus curiae in this but prayed for some time to prepare the case, it was granted, the matter is being heard in the last two days.