SHAYAMI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here pertains to the attack upon the complainant Shiv Kumar Sharma, at the railway crossing of Gurukul Inderprasth and the injuries caused to him by the petitioners Shayami, Siri Chand, Mehar Chand, Raghbir and others, as a request of which, he suffered multiple injuries which included five fractures. This happened on May 21, 1980, at about 7.45 a.m. In respect of this incident the petitioners were convicted under Sections 148, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 200/- fine and six months' rigorous imprisonment respectively, thereunder. In appeal agreeing with the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had not been properly recorded in as much as the testimony of the eye-witnesses P.W.3 Braham Dutt and P.W.4 Pushkar, had not been put to them, the appellate Court set aside their conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial Magistrate with the direction to record their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, afresh and to decide the case thereafter, after affording the petitioners an opportunity to lead evidence in defence and hearing them thereafter. It is this order that is now sought to be challenged in revision on the ground that keeping in view the prolonged trial that the petitioners have already undergone, further continuation of the trial would result in undue hardship and prejudice to them and the impugned order thus, deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. This plea being founded upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Machander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 792, wherein it was observed :-

(2.) REFERENCE was also made to the judgment of this Court in Mool Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 306 : 1984(1) C.L.R. 265 where relying upon the above observations of the Supreme Court in Machander's case (supra), an order of remand for improper recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was substituted in revision by that of an acquittal on the ground that continuation of trial would prolong agency of the petitioner who had already faced protracted trial.

(3.) THERE can, of course, be no manner of doubt that inherent in the continuation of a trial is the strain and the adverse effect of it upon an accused and it must, therefore, be the endeavour of all courts to ensure that trials are completed without undue delay. At the same time, it cannot be accepted as an invariable rule of law that mere prolongation of a trial must be itself be taken as ground enough to let an accused go scout free irrespective of the nature of the offence charged and the circumstances under which it was committed. Each case has to be seen in the context of its own set of circumstances.