RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused-appellant under Sec. 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 65/2017 filed at Police Station Gandhi Nagar District Ajmer for the offences under Ss. 302, 380, 449, 457, 450 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The primary ground raised, in support of the instant appeal, pertains to the duration of custody of the accused-appellant and the delayed trial in connection therewith. In this regard, it is averred by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant has been in judicial custody since a period of 6 years and 9 months. Moreover, out of the 19 witnesses to be examined, only 5 are yet to tender their statements before the Court. In this regard, it was also averred that even though the trial is on the verge of completion, since the past one year, no witnesses have been examined and the trial is moving at a snail's pace. In support of the contentions raised herein- above qua the prolonged judicial custody and the right of the accused-appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a speedy trial, reliance has been placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Praveen Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in Special Leave to Appeal No. 6505/2023, SLA No. 11580/2022 titled as Hari Ram Vs. Union of India, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in SLP (Crl.) No. 915/2023 and P. Rama Chandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, Appeal (Crl.) No. 535/2000.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the complainant in conjunction with the learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the instant appeal. In support of the opposition, it was averred that while considering the fourth appeal, filed pursuant to the rejection of the erstwhile appeals, this Court must only assess the change in circumstance, and not deliberate on other grounds of merit, which have already been taken note of previously. Whereas, qua the contention pertaining to the prolonged judicial custody and delayed trial, learned Counsel for the complainant averred that the trial is at the verge of conclusion as only 5 witnesses are yet to be examined. Even otherwise, it was averred that if convicted under Sec. 302 of IPC, the accused-appellant would be sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, the instant appeal should be dismissed, irrespective of the arguments raised by the Counsel for the accused- appellant.