Supreme Court Expresses Alarm Over Prosecution's Laxity in J&K Murder Case
The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the prosecution in a Jammu and Kashmir murder case for examining only seven witnesses over a span of seven years, while the accused remained incarcerated as an undertrial prisoner. The court's sharp remarks came during a hearing on Tuesday, where it granted bail to the accused and demanded immediate explanations from authorities.
Court Questions Prosecution's Approach
Justice J B Pardiwala, part of the bench hearing the case, did not mince words when he stated, "Is this a joke? You have made a mockery of Article 21. You have made a mockery of this concept of speedy trial, and in all respect, you have violated the fundamental right of this accused who is behind bars as undertrial prisoner past seven years." The bench, which also included Justice K V Viswanathan, expressed deep concern over the prosecution's apparent laxity in conducting the trial.
Details of the Case and Bail Grant
The case involves accused Anoop Singh, who had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in a murder case dating back to October 4, 2018. After reviewing a report from the trial court, the Supreme Court noted that despite 82 hearings, not a single witness had been examined recently. The court described the trial court's report as "extremely disappointing" and highlighted that the prosecution still intended to examine 17 more witnesses.
In its order, the court directed that Singh be released on bail, subject to terms to be fixed by the trial court. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting the fundamental right to a speedy trial, even in serious criminal cases.
Broader Implications for Criminal Justice System
The Supreme Court's intervention extends beyond this individual case. Upon learning that many other undertrials face similar delays, the bench has asked the Jammu and Kashmir Home Secretary to place on record all pending criminal trials where the accused has been in custody for more than five years. The Home Secretary has been given four weeks to file a response and has been directed to appear before the court via video conferencing at the next hearing.
This move signals the court's intention to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system, particularly concerning prolonged pretrial detention. The court emphasized that the state and prosecuting agencies must provide explanations for what it termed "gross and inordinate delay" in concluding trials.
Prosecution's Defense and Court's Rebuttal
During the hearing, counsel for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir attempted to explain the delays by citing the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent legal proceedings, including a protest petition by the victim's wife and a fresh investigation ordered by the high court in 2022. However, Justice Pardiwala questioned whether the pandemic could justify such extensive delays in recording oral evidence.
The court noted that even after 2022, there had been no significant progress in the case, further highlighting the prosecution's failure to advance the trial. The bench remarked that the trial judge appeared exasperated, though the court clarified that judicial officers should not express helplessness in such situations.
Looking Ahead: Judicial Scrutiny and Reform
The Supreme Court has made it clear that it plans to take a "very strict view" of the matter, indicating potential reforms or stricter oversight of long-pending trials. This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of timely justice delivery and the need for accountability within prosecuting agencies.
As the Home Secretary prepares to submit the requested data, legal experts anticipate that this could lead to broader discussions on improving trial efficiency and reducing the backlog of cases across India's judicial system. The Supreme Court's proactive stance may inspire similar scrutiny in other high courts and trial courts nationwide.
