news details |
|
|
| Justice after 28 years: acquittal | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 27-Acquiting the accused from the charges framed against him by the trial court in two cases, after 28 years of trial and investigation, Justice Vinod Kumar Gupta of J&K High Court, Jammu Wing, while allowing two appeals filed by the petitioner, observed that the prosecution took 15 years in producing the evidence and that was of no use to the prosecution.
The court further referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case P. Ramachandra Rao v/s State of Karnataka in which it has held that the accused has a right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and while considering the question of delay, the court has particularly the duty to see whether the prolongation was on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the accused and other relevant aspects to the delay. Reliance is also placed upon the case State vs. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar & Anr. Thus, it emerges that the delay in the trial is the genuine ground for quashing the proceedings and acquittal of the accused thereafter if the delay in trial in the court is not at the instance of accused-appellant. In the instant case the delay in the trial of the case is on the part of prosecution and not on the part of the accused. The accused who was convicted in two cases and was acquitted in remaining cases vide orders passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu after a period of 28 years. One can see the agony faced by the accused-appellant because of delay in trial of cases. He must have retired from the service or was about to retire from the service and could not perform his duty properly because of pendency of cases in the court of law. His family must have suffered a lot because of delay in the trial of cases, the court observed.
The counsel for the accused-appellant Adv SDS Saini has lastly submitted that the Investigating Officer in the case has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the accused-appellant. Counsel has failed to point out as to how the accused is prejudiced by non-production of the Investigating Officer in the case. Hence this contention of the counsel for accused-appellant has no force.
In the approved for reporting judgment, Justice Gupta held that the charges framed against the accused-appellant by the trial court under sections 420/465/471 RPC have not been substantiated by the prosecution by leading any unimpeachable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The conviction cannot be based on sole evidence of opinion given by a witness, which is not relevant and is also unbelievable. Since there is no evidence against the accused-appellant, as such the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him by the trial court in both the cases.
The accused/ appellant Bodh Raj, who was teacher in the Government High School Gole Gujral during 1978, had allegedly prepared 25 fraudulent bills during 1978-1980 and withdrawn an amount of Rs 67, 950 from the treasury and misappropriated the same. The investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch and after completion of the investigation eight different challans were presented in the Court of law. After trial of all these cases, the accused was acquitted in six cases but was convicted in two cases u/s 420/465/471 RPC and court awarded simple imprisonment of six months and Rs 1000 fine. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused filed these two appeals in the High Court which were taken up together because the facts in both the cases were identical and same question of law was involved in both the appeals. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
