KESHO RAM Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who appears to have been mentally harassed and physically wrecked for a period of about 21 years seeks the quashing of the proceedings pending against him in the Trial Court of AddI. Sessions Judge, Ramban. The case reflects the inherent defects in our judicial system negating the fundamental right of a citizen of getting a criminal prosecution decided expeditiously and without delay. In all the civilized societies it is now acknowledged that the right to a speedy trial in criminal prosecutions is a basic right available to a person and has been held to be inalienable fundamental right of the citizens of this country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Some of the startling facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith his wife and one Nand Lal were raped in a criminal case vide First Information Report No. 19 of 1969 lodged with Police Station Ramban on 18-4-1969. The Court of Judicial Magistrate,. Ramban committed the accused persons to the court of Sessions for standing their trial vide this order dated 7-6-1969. After the prosecution evidence was closed and the statements of the accused persons recorded in Feb. 1970 the case was transferred the to Sh. N.K. Ganjoo, the then Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah for disposal according to law. As Sh. Ganjoo could not conduct the proceedings, a transfer application No. 62 of 1971 was filed in this court by the accused persons which was dismissed on 21-7-1971. However, denovo trial was directed to be held in the case vide court order dated 6-10-1972 under the Old Criminal Procedure Code and the prosecution evidence commenced afresh with effect from 30-11- 1972. Nand Lal of the accused persons out of frustration fom life jumped into Chinab River and died be factum of his death was confirmed by the prosecution only on 15-10-79. For a further period of 8 years the prosecution evidence could not be recorded which was eventually closed 21- 4-87 and thereafter the defence evidence is being recorded. The petitioners who are husband and wife have traversed major part of their re during this period and are admitted to be old lid infirm at this stage being unable even to end the court and to face the trial.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the parties during the arguments agreed that the petition disposed off at this initial stage without formally admitting it.