Matters Of Gruesome Crime Don’t Warrant Withdrawal Of Prosecution Merely On The Ground Of Good Public Image Of Accused: SC
The Supreme Court remarked that the matters of a gruesome crime do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of the accused.
The Court said that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly, it cannot be a testament to their image among the general public.
The Court remarked thus in a criminal appeal preferred against the order of the Allahabad High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “Considering the material on record and the political influence of accused Chhote Singh and the Trial Court’s casual approach towards the accusations against the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly in allowing withdrawal of his prosecution, this court is of the opinion that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Contrary to the Trial Court’s view, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people.”
The Bench noted that the judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings.
AOR Sudhir Naagar represented the appellant while Senior Advocate A.K. Misra represented the respondents.
In this case, the Trial Court had allowed the application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for one of the accused persons, Chhote Singh observing that his image was good in public and he was a respected citizen of the society, but it dismissed the same with respect to the other nine accused persons. In 1994, an FIR was registered by the complainant who was the uncle of the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against five named accused persons and against two unknown persons. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons, armed with guns, entered through the front gate of his house and one of the accused challenged them and alleged that the victims were making police complaints against him for kidnapping and selling opium and hence, they came to teach them a lesson.
The accused persons allegedly fired indiscriminately due to which some got injured and fell down. The complainant was also fired but he got saved because he was laid down on the ground. One of the accused persons i.e., Chhote Singh was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the ruling party in Uttar Pradesh in the year 2007. The Governor permitted the Public Prosecutor to submit an application before the Trial Court seeking withdrawal of his prosecution and the Government Order was further modified to permit seeking withdrawal of prosecution of other accused persons as well. The High Court adjourned the hearing of a batch of criminal revision petitions at the request of the counsel for the accused persons for the sixth time. Hence, the matter was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “It is apparent that this case presents concerning circumstances wherein politically influential individuals, accused of a double murder in broad daylight, have evaded trial for almost three decades. … the High Court in repeatedly allowing the adjournment requests has only allowed the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial and have failed to ensure that the justice system is set in motion and is not halted due to the lamentable specter of political influence.”
The Court said that the present case highlights the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice and the undue influence wielded by powerful individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. It added that this underscores the urgent need to address systemic flaws and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.
“Complainant has approached this Court challenging the repetitive adjournments in their criminal revision petitions against withdrawal of Respondent No.2’s prosecution, thus we are only deciding with respect to the case of Respondent No.2. Other accused persons are not before us; thus we are not going into the merits of their applications seeking withdrawal of prosecution. However, acknowledging the extensive delay already caused in the case, we are inclined to request the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised- due to political influence or any other extraneous factors”, it ordered.
Lastly, the Court emphasised the paramount importance of ensuring progression of the trial without further delay.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and directed for the expeditious conclusion of the criminal trial.
Cause Title- Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 529)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sudhir Naagar, Advocates Neeraj Kumar, Chandrakala Sharma, Naresh Bhola, Priyanka Gautam, Kashish Goel, Sonal Bohra, Vandna Sachdeva, and Hari Singh Rawat.
Respondents: Senior Advocate A. K. Misra, AOR Arup Banerjee, Advocates Priyanshu Raj, Sanjeev Sharma, R. K. Dey, Rajiv Agnihotri, Rupak Shrivastava, Prakash Sharma., Meghraj Singh, Jn Singh, Ratnesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar, Jeevan R Patil, Madhavan Srivatsan, Arjav Jain, and AOR Shashank Shekhar.
